NO 


91-80150-2 


MICROFILMED  1991 

if 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material ... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


WATSON, 


CALVIN 


TITLE: 

THE 


PLACE: 

[S.L.] 

DA  TE : 

[19-- 


OFTHE 
GS  TO. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


87T27 

DW 


Watson,  John  Calvin 

The  relation  of  the  scene-headings  to  the 
miniatiires  in  manuscripts  of  Terence.     cl9— 3 

£553-172  p. 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


1.  Terentius  Afer,  Publius 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA 

DATE     FILMED: 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUB 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


// 


yf- 


\L    INITIALS JSL 

S.INC  WOODBRIDGE.CT 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3        4        5        6        7 

ilmilMMhmlimliMiLiiliiiilimhiMlniilnnliMilmiliii 


nf 


fm 


8 


mini 


9        10       11       12       13       14       15    mm 

Miliiiiliiiiliiiihiiiliiiiliiiiliinliiiilimliiiiliiiiliiii 


TT7~rT 


Inches 


1 


TTT 


1.0 

1^   II  2.8 

■  50       '"=== 
■^      IIIIP-^ 

Ittbu 

1.4 

2.5 
22 

I.I 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

I    M   I   I   II 

5 


1 


MflNUFflCTURED  TO  RUM  STRNDRRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMAGE,     INC. 


f»**:T 


■•  • 


mm 


wo-' 


f*& 


mmm 


y-'erfii  >!«,';-}  J'-. 


tn??a« 


H'fv^  i* 


1*.  •.■ 


-£iS 


.-&2;; 


»Sf;.»;: 


VI- 


ii!l«i 


■I     *'''  i 


Pftt 


'ur}t:i.i; 


fcw-'.-j  * 


^.li 


•','4l*T  r. 


?3l4^S 


¥  ''.::  ■  ■ 


S-V~   .11  •,»  J-..    ,'  - 


Si'.K: 


;V.A 


•V 


v«i 


•if;.' 


-i^; 


^> 


■'.,a:if.t. 


'*.■'■ 


^  .    If' 


?J7 


SI    V\ 


J>«" 


r^j 


i^tkfev 


V^I 


7'.:  -5 


111* 


m 


'.■*A 


^». 


.■*»«^? 


li.f*i 


'r'«V\-' 


V  .; 


■1*    -;'-J, 


!!rfi?9^ 


s-i  ,.f 


.  ;41 


*i4?. 


■-^1-1 


i  •/■: 


>;-.-..-: 


/ 


'.i^-: 


i^^.i- 


^fr 


.*. : ' 


!.V*-'' 


mn 


Itt: 


V; 


:^**T 


:<^:if^ 


-.v»s 


.-•ji^ 


^sh; 


'.5'4' 


S&^&^*!tSi 


.4>\ 


•'M 


ss*  •■ 


E-ifei. 


■ijf^ 


i-K: 


-  *  i* 


.1 


^< 


'.--*-'. 


■ ■lillliiilflf  T "JlPilllliilini''  11  "I  ■ ililiuf ■■■I'll"  ■ lllliK  ■ Sii '  . ■■! null :..  ■ "'« ■■■■iJil 1 ■..: 


%    t 


THE  LIBRARIES 


•   / 


.*  .■'»•■■• 


i-i 


3 

T 

2 

CO 

in 

a> 

«D 

••— 

1 

vo 

aa 

^ 

UI 

^  /     l(/— f 


^4> 


:dw 


THE   RELATION   OF  THE   SCENE-HEADINGS  TO   THE 
MINIATURES   IN   MANUSCRIPTS   OF   TERENCE 

By  John  Calvin  Watson 

THE  miniatures  preserved  in  certain  manuscripts  of  Terence  have 
long  attracted  the  attention  of  students  of  ancient  life.  On  the 
date  of  their  origin  scholars  have  held  widely  different  views,  but  since 
the  publication  of  Leo's  investigation  of  this  subject,  his  conclusion,  that 
their  origin  must  be  assigned  to  a  very  early  period,  has  been  generally 
accepted.^  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  Leo's  arguments  are 
entirely  convincing,  for  some  scholars  still  hold  to  the  late  origin  of  the 
miniatures.2  If  it  is  only  within  the  last  twenty  years  that  a  subject,  in 
Itself  so  attractive,  has  received  any  measurably  adequate  treatment,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  another  subject,  somewhat  similar  in  nature,  has 
been  comparatively  neglected.  I  refer  to  the  origin  of  the  scene-head- 
ings, the  names  of  characters,  usually  with  their  roles,  prefixed  to  each 
scene  in  which  the  characters  named  are  participants.  The  reasons  for 
the  neglect  of  this  subject  are  not  hard  to  find.  It  was  not  until  the 
publication  of  Umpfenbach's  critical  edition  of  Terence,  in  1870,  that 
the  material  necessary  for  such  a  study  became  available.  After  the 
appearance  of  Umpfenbach's  edition,  its  inaccuracy  in  many  respects 
may  have  discouraged  consideration  of  a  subject  which,  it  may  be 
added,  seemed  to  offer  little  promise  of  any  results. 

On  the  origin  of  the  scene-headings  little  has  been  written.  As  a 
subject  of  investigation,  however,  these  have  not  been  entirely  neglected 
by  classical  scholars.  Before  the  appearance  of  Umpfenbach's  edition 
of  Terence,  nothing,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find,  had  been  written 
about  them,  although  they  are  a  prominent  feature  in  the  mss.  both  of 


»  Cf.  M.  Mus.  XXXVin>  pe. '3 z;7t347>  especially  p.  334  ff. 

*  Two  writers  have  expressed  this  befief :  C.  Sittl,  Die  Gebarden  der  Griechen  und 
R'dmer,  p,.  206 1  and  K..Klotz^  gnipidzug'e  cltfdmischer  Metrik,  p.  563.  Sittl  thinks 
that  the  originals  vjert;  nof  oltjer  ihtn  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  while  Klotz  would 
assign  them  to  the  e^gjitlj  century., ,,  , 


<i 

CO 

in 

CD 

•0 

*— 

1 

ir-l 

so 

Ol 

^ 

Ui 

rj' 


^4) 


^W^ 


THE   RELATION   OF   THE   SCENE-HEADINGS  TO   THE 
MINIATURES   IN   MANUSCRIPTS   OF  TERENCE 

By  John  Calvin  Watson 

THE  miniatures  preserved  in  certain  manuscripts  of  Terence  have 
long  attracted  the  attention  of  students  of  ancient  life.  On  the 
date  of  their  origin  scholars  have  held  widely  different  views,  but  since 
the  publication  of  Leo's  investigation  of  this  subject,  his  conclusion,  that 
their  origin  must  be  assigned  to  a  very  early  period,  has  been  generally 
accepted.^  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  Leo's  arguments  are 
entirely  convincing,  for  some  scholars  still  hold  to  the  late  origin  of  the 
miniatures.^  If  it  is  only  within  the  last  twenty  years  that  a  subject,  in 
itself  so  attractive,  has  received  any  measurably  adequate  treatment,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  another  subject,  somewhat  similar  in  nature,  has 
been  comparatively  neglected.  I  refer  to  the  origin  of  the  scene-head- 
ings, the  names  of  characters,  usually  with  their  roles,  prefixed  to  each 
scene  in  which  the  characters  named  are  participants.  The  reasons  for 
the  neglect  of  this  subject  are  not  hard  to  find.  It  was  not  until  the 
publication  of  Umpfenbach's  critical  edition  of  Terence,  in  1870,  that 
the  material  necessary  for  such  a  study  became  available.  After  the 
appearance  of  Umpfenbach's  edition,  its  inaccuracy  in  many  respects 
may  have  discouraged  consideration  of  a  subject  which,  it  may  be 
added,  seemed  to  offer  little  promise  of  any  results. 

On  the  origin  of  the  scene-headings  little  has  been  written.  As  a 
subject  of  investigation,  however,  these  have  not  been  entirely  neglected 
by  classical  scholars.  Before  the  appearance  of  Umpfenbach's  edition 
of  Terence,  nothing,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find,  had  been  written 
about  them,  although  they  are  a  prominent  feature  in  the  mss.  both  of 


*  Cf.  J^A,  Mm.  XXX Villi  P9-'3l,7rS47,  especially  p.  334  ff. 

*  Two  writers  have  expressed  tnis  befief :  C.  Sittl,  Die  Geb'drden  der  Griechen  und 
R'dmer,  p..  2u6r  and  R.,klotz^  gzi^ndzitge  altfomischer  Metrik,  p.  563.  Sittl  thinks 
that  the  originals  ^er«;  noj  oltjer  th»n  ths  fourth  or  fifth  century,  while  Klotz  would 
assign  them  to  the  e^gjitli  century., ,,  , 


56 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Pkutus  and  of  Terence.  The  principle  to  be  employed  by  a  modern 
editor  of  Plautus  in  the  division  of  scenes  was  discussed  by  Ritschl,^ 
who  followed  Bothe  closely  in  this  respect.  Since  Ritschl,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principle  of  scene-division  adopted  by  him,  deviated  in 
many  places  from  the  tradition  of  the  mss.,  it  is  evident  that  his  discus- 
sion is  theoretical.  He  frequently  mentioned  the  scene-headings  in 
MSS.  of  Plautus,  but  it  was  with  reference  to  the  names  of  characters, 
or  to  the  abbreviations  which  are  frequently  used  in  certain  mss.  of  this 
author  to  distinguish  the  cantica  and  the  diverbia.  In  no  place,  so  far 
as  I  have  found,  does  he  mention  the  scene-headings  as  a  subject  of 
investigation  in  themselves. 

The  first  scholar,  therefore,  to  give  any  attention  to  this  subject  was 
apparently  Umpfenbach.*  His  remarks  are  very  brief,  and  are  confined 
to  the  Bembinus  of  Terence.  In  the  same  year  Studemund  referred 
with  equal  brevity  to  the  scene-headings  both  in  this  ms.  and  in  the 
Ambrosianus  of  Plautus.'  It  was  not  until  1883,  however,  that  any 
discussion  of  the  subject  based  upon  the  more  important  mss.  of  both 
authors  appeared.  In  the  year  named,  Spengel  published  an  article  on 
scene-headings  and  scene-division,  in  both,  however,  referring  chiefly 
to  the  MSS.  of  Plautus.*  This  article  was  reviewed  three  years  later  by 
Seyffert  with  such  thoroughness  that,  in  some  respects,  he  made  a  new 
contribution  to  the  literature  on  this  subject.*  Seyffert's  discussion, 
however,  like  that  of  Spengel,  is  confined  chiefly  to  Plautus.  The  next 
contribution  was  made  by  Schlee,  who  tried  to  show  that  the  scene- 
headings  transmitted  in  the  illustrated  mss.  of  Terence  had  their  source 
in  MSS.  of  the  S  family.*  The  latest  reference  that  I  have  found  to  the 
subject  is  Dr.  Prescott's  investigation  of  the  source  of  the  names  found 
in  the  scene-headings  in  the  Palatine  mss.  of  Plautus.''  Single  headings 
and  the  division  of  scenes  in  particular  places  have  sometimes  been 
discussed  briefly  in  the  editions. 


*  Opmc.  Phil,  II,  pp.  365-368. 

*  Praef.  ed.  crit.  p.  ix  f .  .      .  ,  •     .  %      9 

*  Commentatio  de  Vidularia  PMuiin0*  p-'.l9t  «i.  36.  ,  *  \ 

*  Siizungsber.  d.  bayr,  Akad.^ phil.'Mst'.  CL^  l88j,  It,  'pp.* '25^-298. 

*  Bursian*s  jfakresberickt,  XlfVtf  '(|8^&),  ppV9-I4#  * 
®  Scholia  Terentiana^  p.  6  f .  •       .     ■  '.   *  .'  I       *,      / 
'  Harv.  Sttid.  in  Class.  Phil.  IX,  pp..  102-108.,   •  ,•• 


u  • 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


S7 


Such  is  the  brief  list  of  references  that  I  have  found  to  this  subject. 
Most  of  the  theories  that  have  been  advanced  on  the  general  subject  are 
based  upon  the  mss.  of  Plautus  rather  than  on  those  of  Terence.  So  far 
as  these  relate  to  Terence  they  will  be  noticed  at  the  proper  place. 
That  many  of  them  are  wrong,  and  that  for  Terence,  at  least,  the  treat- 
ment of  this  subject  has  been  wholly  inadequate,  will  be  shown  in  this 
paper.  None  of  the  scholars  named  seems  to  have  suspected  the  exist- 
ence of  any  relationship  between  the  miniatures  in  the  y  mss.  of  Terence 
and  the  scene-headings  in  mss.  of  all  classes  and  families.^  Schlee 
denied  the  existence  of  such  a  relationship  even  in  the  illustrated  mss., 
and  it  has  always  been  assumed  without  argument  that  in  their  origin, 
at  least,  the  miniatures  and  the  scene-headings  were  in  no  way  con- 
nected .*  The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  show  that  these  are  so  closely 
related  that  one  of  them  must  owe  its  origin  to  the  other.* 


•  •  • 


•  •  •   t  • 


r 


*  The  Ambrosianus  (F)  in  its  text  shows  characteristic  readings  of  both  families 
of  MSS.,  but  in  its  miniatures  it  clearly  belongs  to  the  7  family. 

'  Professor  W.  M.  Lindsay,  however,  seems  to  have  suspected  that  some  of  the 
names  in  the  scene-headings  of  mss.  of  Plautus  were  derived  from  pictures.  Cf. 
Harv.  Stud,  in  Class.  Phil.,  IX,  p.  108,  n. 

•  It  is  proper  that  a  statement  should  be  made  of  the  material  upon  which  this 
investigation  is  based.  In  the  study  of  the  miniatures  I  have  used  facsimiles  and 
reproductions  as  far  as  these  have  been  accessible.  For  the  Phormio  the  material  of 
this  kind  has  been  complete.  The  photographic  reproductions  of  the  Vatican  minia- 
tures, which  were  published  on  the  occasion  of  the  presentation  of  this  play  at 
Harvard  University  in  1894,  have  been  constantly  at  my  hand.  For  the  miniatures 
of  this  play  in  the  other  three  important  illustrated  mss.,  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  K.  E. 
Weston,  of  Williams  College,  for  permission  to  use  his  drawings,  which  are  published 
in  this  volume  of  the  Harvard  Studies  in  Classical  Philology.  Of  imitations  of  the 
miniatures  only  those  of  the  Vatican  manuscript  made  by  Cocquelines  for  his  edition 
of  Terence,  Rome,  1767,  have  been  accessible.  For  these  I  have  used  the  copy  of 
Cocquelines  in  the  library  of  Cornell  University.  I  am  aware  that  from  the  time  of 
Wieseler,  the  faithfulness  of  these  to  the  originals  has  been  questioned.  It  has  lately 
been  shown  by  J.  W.  Basore,  Studies  in  Honor  of  Basil  L.  Gilder  sleeve,  p.  276  f., 
n.  3,  that  in  a  number  of  places  (to  which  should  be  added  And.  2,  3),  Cocquelines* 
devised  pictures  of  his  own.  It  is  true  also  that  he  supplied  an  aedicula  personarum 
for  the  Eunuchus  and  changed  the  figure  of  the  prologus  in  all  the  plays.  The 
pictures  in  a  few  places  were  transferred  to  another  part  of  the  scene,  but  the  pic- 
tures themselves  suffered  no  material  alterations.  For  matters  of  detail  in  gestures 
and  dress  they  are  inaccurate.  The  position  of  the  fingers  in  gestures  is  not  infre- 
quently changed.     In  their  general  aspect,  however,  the  gestures  are  true  to  the 


58 


yohn  Calvin  Watson 


It  is  recognized  that  any  adequate  treatment  of  the  scene-headings 
in  Mss.  of  Terence  must  include  those  also  in  mss.  of  Plautus,  for  these 
are  so  similar  in  content  and  form  that  there  must  be  some  connection 
between  them.  Except  in  places,  however,  where  the  point  under 
discussion  can  best  be  illustrated  by  examples  from  Plautus,  the  scene- 
headings  in  MSS.  of  this  author  will  be  disregarded.  The  present  paper 
will  be  confined  to  a  discussion  of  the  relationship  existing  between  the 
scene-headings  and  the  miniatures  in  mss.  of  Terence.  The  scene- 
headings  transmitted  in  codices  of  Plautus,  together  with  the  history  of 
these  in  both  authors,  is  a  subject  which  the  writer  proposes  to  consider 
in  a  later  paper. 

For  convenience  in  reference  the  table  given  on  p.  60  has  been  prepared 
to  show  the  mss.  of  Terence  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  paper.  For 
each  of  these  the  usual  classification  according  to  family  is  given,  the 
usual  abbreviation  (if  one  has  been  assigned  it),  the  century  in  which  it 
was  written,  the  method  in  which  the  text  is  divided  into  scenes,  and 


originals.  Excluding  the  aedicula  of  the  Eunuchus,  the  figures  of  the  prologus  and 
the  few  other  pictures  supplied  by  Cocquelines,  the  imitations  faithfully  reproduce 
the  general  appearance  of  the  originals.  The  order  of  characters  in  a  miniature  was 
changed  in  but  one  place.  This  exception,  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  proves  the  rule,  for 
the  change  was  necessary  in  order  to  reduce  the  picture  to  the  limits  of  Cocquelines' 
page.  For  my  purpose,  therefore,  the  identification  of  the  figures  in  the  miniatures, 
I  have  not  hesitated  to  use  Cocquelines*  edition.  In  no  place,  however,  have  I 
permitted  the  interpretation  of  the  miniatures  to  rest  upon  this  evidence  alone.  In 
testing  the  accuracy  of  Cocquelines  and  in  determining  the  order  of  characters  in  the 
Vatican  miniatures,  I  have  received  most  valuable  aid  from  Professor  Minton  Warren's 
notes  on  this  manuscript,  which  have  been  generously  placed  at  my  disposal.  In 
a  few  places  where  the  identification  of  figures  is  difficult,  Dr.  C.  L.  Babcock,  of 
Cornell  University,  has  further  examined  for  me  the  miniatures  in  this  manuscript.  To 
Dr.  Donald  Cameron,  a  fellow-student  in  Classical  Philology  in  Harvard  University, 
now  continuing  his  studies  in  Europe,  I  am  under  obligation  for  an  account  of  the 
miniatures  and  the  distribution  of  scenes  in  two  Paris  mss.,  Nos.  7900  and  7903,  and 
for  his  careful  examination  of  the  order  of  figures  in  the  miniatures  of  these  mss.,  of 
the  Dunelmensis  (O) ,  and  especially  the  Parisinus  No.  7899  (P) . 

For  the  scene -headings  in  the  Victorianus  (D),  Riccardianus  (E),  and  in  part  of 
the  Ambrosianus  (F),  and  the  Parisinus  (P),  I  have  used  Umpfenbach's  edition  of 
Terence.  On  the  Parisinus  I  owe  further  information  to  Mr.  Weston,  who  kindly 
examined  for  me  every  scene  in  which  the  headings  in  either  this  MS.  or  the  Vati- 
canus  (C)  were  omitted  by  the  first  hand,  or  have  been  altered  by  a  later  hand. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


59 


\ 


the  parts  which  are  lost,  or  are  written  by  later  hands.  These  items  are 
taken  in  part  from  the  Preface  to  Hauler's  edition  of  the  Phormio 
(1898),  p.  29. 

Order  of  Names  in  the  Scene-Headings 

A  characteristic  feature  of  the  scene-headings  is  the  order  in  which 
the  names  appear.  This  was  noticed,  no  doubt,  long  before  Umpfen- 
bach  and  Studemund,  but  it  was  left  for  these  two  scholars  in  the  year 
1870  to  record  their  observation  of  this  fact.^  It  was  then  pointed  out 
for  the  first  time  that  in  the  heading  of  any  scene  the  characters  are 
usually  named  in  the  order  of  their  first  participation  in  the  dialogue. 
It  was  noticed,  however,  by  both  the  scholars  named  above,  that  when 
two  characters  having  the  same  role,  as  servi,  senes,  adulescentes,  ajtcillae, 
are  active  in  the  same  scene,  their  names,  without  regard  to  the  order 
of  their  participation  in  the  dialogue,  are  usually  written  together. 
This  was  regarded  by  Umpfenbach  as  the  device  of  a  copyist.  Both 
Umpfenbach  and  Studemund  were  occupied  chiefly  in  pointing  out 


From  Professor  Warren's  collations  of  mss.  of  Terence  I  have  been  able  to  confirm 
or  to  correct  the  scene-headings  given  by  Umpfenbach  for  the  Bembinus  (A) ,  Vati- 
canus  (C),  Decurtatus  (G),  and,  in  part,  the  Ambrosianus  (F).  Through  Professor 
Warren,  also,  I  have  secured  a  copy  of  the  scene-headings  in  the  Dunelmensis  (O). 
For  the  scene-headings  in  the  important  scholia  codex  Monacensis  14420  (M),  I  have 
followed  Schlee  in  the  Scholia  Terentiana,  pp.  17-34.  The  few  scene-headings  in 
the  Vienna  fragment  (V)  I  have  taken  from  Hauler's  account  of  this  MS.  published 
in  the  IViener  Studien,  XVIII,  p.  84  ff.  For  part  of  the  Parisinus  No.  10304  the 
scene-headings  given  by  Fritsch  in  the  Philologus,  XXXII,  p.  446  ff.  have  been 
available.  Through  Mr.  G.  F.  Heffelbower  I  have  secured  a  complete  list  of  these, 
and  an  account  of  the  division  of  the  text  into  scenes  in  this  MS.  I  am  further 
indebted  to  Dr.  Cameron  for  the  list  of  the  headings  and  the  distribution  of  scenes  in 
the  Lipsiensis  (L).  This  MS.  must  be  regarded  as  especially  important,  since 
Dr.  Kauer  in  the  Zeitschr.f.  d.  osterreich.  Gymn.,  LII  (1901),  p.  988,  has  expressed 
his  belief  that  this,  rather  than  the  Victorianus,  is  the  best  representative  of  the 
3  family.  For  the  scene -headings  and  the  division  of  scenes  in  the  commentary 
preserved  under  the  name  of  Donatus,  I  have  followed  P.  Wessner  in  the  preface  to 
Vol.  I  of  his  new  critical  edition  of  Donatus,  p.  xlviii  f. 

To  the  friends,  named  above,  who  have  personally  aided  me  in  securing  new 
material,  or  have  given  me  permission  to  use  their  own  collections  in  my  investiga- 
tion of  this  subject,  I  here  express  my  gratitude. 

*  For  the  references,  see  p.  56. 


6o 


John  Calvin  Watson 


E 

• 

> 

1 

A 

D 

G 

L 
M 

V 

c 
o 
p 

F 

E 

Manuscripts 

Cen. 
tury 

Division  of  Scenes 
is  indicated  by 

Notes  on  Contents 

Bembinus. 

IV/V 

Scene-headings. 

Lost :  And.  1-786  (all) ;  787- 
888  (almost  all);    903-914 
(almost  all);    //ec.  Prol.  I, 
II,  1-30  (all) ;   ^a'.  915-997 
(almost  all) . 

Victorianus. 

X 

Scene-headings . 

Lost:  £un.  Per. 

By  later  hand:  And.  98-179, 

384-453.   846-903;    //an/. 

466-517;   PAorm,  588-633. 

Decurtatus. 

XI 

Scene-headings,  or 
spaces  for  them. 

Lost:  £un.  848-1021;  I/au/. 
Per.,    I -313,    1049- 1067; 
Phorm.  779-1055;  Hec.  i- 
194,  310-880. 

1' 

Lipsiensis. 

X 

Scene-headings. 

Lost:   And.  74-376. 

Monacensis. 
No.  14420. 

XI 

Scene-headings 
(a  few  omitted). 

Lost:  Scholia  on  And.  364- 
427. 

Parisinus. 
No.  10504. 

X 

Scene-headings,  or 
spaces  for  them. 

Lost :  And.  Per. ,  1-302 ;  Phorm, 
Prol.  1-25;  Ad.  Prol.  1-12, 

987-997- 

Fragm.  Vin- 
dobonense. 

X 

Scene-headings. 

Contains  only  And.  912-981; 
Ad,  Per.,  26-158. 

Vaticanus. 
No.  3868. 

IX/X 

Miniatures  with 
scene-headings. 

Lost:  Eun.  Per. 
By  later  hand:  -<4»</.  804-853; 
Etiu.  Prol. 

Dunelmensis, 
orOxoniensis. 

XII 

Miniatures  with 
scene-headings. 

Lost:  ^if^. 459-480;  716-742; 
i?««.495-526;  Phorm. ^yj- 
464,  854-893,  944-1055. 

Parisinus. 
No.  7899. 

IX/X 

Miniatures  with 
scene-headings. 

Lost:  Eun.  Per. 
By  later  hand:  And.  804-853; 
Eun.  Prol.  1-30. 

7- 

Parisinus. 
No.  7900. 

X 

Miniatures  iyaAnd, 
andto£'»it.4,3), 
or  spaces  usually 
for  them.  Scene- 
headings  from 
Haui,  4,  4. 

Lost:  And.  Per.,  1-78,  924- 

981;  Eun.  Per.,  1-80. 
By  later  hand:  ^«^.  797-871. 

I 

Parisinus. 
No.  7903. 

XI 

Miniatures  (for  And. 
1,1;  1,2;  //au/. 
I,   1),  or  spaces 
usually  for  them 
with  scene-head- 
ings. 

Lost:  Eun.  Per. 
Possibly  by  later  hand :   Haul. 
Per. 

Ambrosianus. 

X 

Miniatures   usually 
with  scene-head- 
ings. 

Lost:    And.;    Eun.    1-415 ; 
Phorm.  832-1055. 

Riccardianus. 

XI 

Scene-headings. 

Lost :  Eun.  Per. ;  Phorm.  900- 

1055- 
By  later  hand :  And.  Per. ,  1-39. 

Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


61 


scene-headings  which  show  some  violation  of  the  usual  order  of  names. 
In  the  larger  number  even  of  these  Umpfenbach  saw  no  single  cause 
operating.  In  two  scenes  he  thought  that  it  was  due  to  the  mention  of 
a  character  before  he  takes  any  part  in  the  dialogue.^  This  is  improb- 
able, since  in  several  other  scenes  of  this  kind  the  names  are  given  in 
the  usual  order. '^  In  two  other  scenes  he  saw  that  the  disorder  in  the 
names  might  be  explained  by  a  different  distribution  of  the  notae  of 
characters  for  which  there  is  manuscript  authority.*  In  these  scenes 
the  headings,  if  measured  by  the  order  of  notae  which  assign  the 
dialogue  in  the  Bembinus,  have  an  unusual  order  of  names ;  if  measured 
by  the  distribution  of  the  dialogue  in  part  or  all  of  the  later  mss.,  they 
are  perfectly  regular.  This  explanation,  as  will  be  shown  later,  is 
probably  correct.  There  is  no  probability,  however,  in  Umpfenbach*s 
suggestion  that  in  three  other  headings  the  disorder  might  have  arisen 
from  a  different  distribution  of  the  dialogue  for  which  there  is  no 
manuscript  authority.*  In  these  scenes  any  deviations  from  the  tradi- 
tional assignment  of  the  dialogue  would  be  very  unnatural.  In  the 
remaining  three  scenes  where  Umpfenbach  found  the  headings  in  dis- 
order, he  ascribed  this  fact  to  the  negligence  of  a  copyist.^  Studemund 
accounted  for  all  of  the  ten  in  this  way.  It  is  obvious  that  such  an 
explanation  is  to  be  given  only  as  a  last  resort. 

Umpfenbach  confined  his  remarks  to  the  Bembinus  of  Terence,  but 
Studemund  added  some  information  about  the  scene-headings  in  the 
Ambrosianus  of  Plautus.  Neither  of  these  scholars  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject  the  later  mss.  of  either  author.  It  remained 
for  Spengel  to  note  that  in  all  mss.,  both  of  Plautus  and  of  Terence,  the 
characteristic  order  of  names  is  the  same.*     In  support  of  this  state- 


*  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242) ;  4,  7  (v.  829) . 

«  Cf.  Haut.  4,  I  (v.  614);  4,  4  (v.  723);  Ad.  3,  4  (v.  447). 
«  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  1031);  Phorm.  5,  9  (v.  990).     For  the  first,  see  p.  90  f.;   the 
second,  p.  98. 

*  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454);  Phorm.  2,  3  (v.  348);  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776).  Umpfenbach 
gives  also  Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643),  but  this  is  perfectly  regular. 

*  Haut.  5,  5  (v.  1045);  Phorm.  2,  i  (v.  231);  Ad.  2,  4  (v.  265).  Umpfenbach 
gives  also  Ad.  2,  3  (v.  254),  but  this,  like  Ad.  2,  i  (v.  155),  is  irregular  only  in 
giving  the  name  of  a  mute  character  among  the  interlocutors. 

*  Op.  cit.y  p.  271. 


62 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


63 


ment  Spengel  gave  no  statistics,  and  while  he  recognized  the  fact  that 
the  names  are  in  disorder  in  some  scene-headings,  he  gave  no  list  of 
such  exceptions  in  any  manuscript.  In  giving  the  general  rule  he  was 
right,  but  in  one  statement  he  was  certainly  wrong.  With  regard  to 
the  practice  in  the  Bembinus  of  uniting  in  a  heading  characters  of  the 
same  role,  contrary  to  the  order  in  which  they  first  enter  the  dialogue, 
he  held  that,  with  the  conspicuous  exception  of  this  codex,  it  is  found 
in  only  the  less  valuable  mss.  of  either  author.  Studemund  had  already 
alluded  to  the  fact  that  stlch  names  are  found  united  in  the  Ambrosianus 
of  Plautus.  In  a  review  of  Spengel's  article  Seyffert  pointed  out  this  fact, 
and  gave  further  information  about  the  later  mss.  of  Plautus,  showing 
that  in  these  also  the  uniting  of  such  names  is  not  unusual.^  In  most 
of  the  Palatine  mss.  this  arrangement,  so  far  from  being  unusual,  is  found 
in  a  majority  of  headings  of  this  character.  The  same  is  true  of  the  later 
MSS.  of  Terence.  To  show  the  practice  in  each  of  these,  the  table  given 
below  has  been  prepared.  The  first  column  gives  the  number  of  scenes 
in  each  in  which  characters  of  the  same  role  are  united  contrary  to  the 
order  of  their  first  participation  in  the  dialogue ;  the  second  column 
gives  the  number  in  which  they  are  separated.* 

United  Separated 

A         7  I 

D         6  3 

G         3  3 

V  V  W  A  M  W  ^1  4^K 

M         4  4 

Paris.  10304 6  4 

E         2  1 

From  this  table  it  is  evident  that  in  the  better  mss.  of  Terence  there 
is  a  strong  tendency  to  unite  the  names  of  such  characters,  even  in 


'   Op.  cii.f  p.  9. 

'  The  complete  list  of  such  scenes  is  as  follows:  And.2y  i  (v. 301);  2,5  (v. 412); 
5,  2  (v.  842);  Haui.  4,  4  (v.  723);  £un.  4,  3  (v.  643);  5,  8  (v.  1031)  in  A5; 
Fhorm,  3,  2  (v.  485);  4,5  (v.713);  5,3  (v.784)  in  E;  5.8(v.894);  S,9(v.99o); 
Ad.  2,  4  (v.  265) ;  3,  4  (v.  447).  For  the  arrangement  of  the  figures  in  the  minia- 
tures at  these  places,  see  p.  71  f.  On  And.  5,  2  (v.  842),  see  p.  168,  n.  5.  On 
Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723),  see  p.  158  f.  On  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  1031),  see  p.  150  f.  On 
Fharm.  5,  3  (v.  784),  see  p.  151  f.  On  Phorm.  5,  8  (v.  894)  and  5,  9  (v.  990),  see 
p.  97  i' 


71 


violation  of  the  order  of  their  participation  in  the  dialogue.  Contrary 
to  Spengel's  statement,  it  is  only  in  the  inferior  mss.  both  of  Plautus 
and  of  Terence  that  such  names  are  separated  in  a  majority  of  the 
scenes  of  this  character. 

For  scene-headings  which  show  some  violation  of  the  usual  order 
Spengel  offered  a  new  explanation.  He  suggested  that  in  early  mss., 
wherever  characters  remain  on  the  stage  for  two  successive  scenes,  they 
were  denoted  in  the  heading  of  the  second  by  the  words  eidem  or 
roEM.  For  these  words  copyists  afterwards  supplied  the  names  in  one 
of  two  ways :  either  they  took  them  from  the  heading  of  the  previous 
scene,  or  they  took  them  from  the  text  of  the  scene  in  the  heading  of 
which  the  abbreviation  was  used.  In  the  latter  case  the  names  were 
arranged  in  the  usual  order.  In  the  former  case  they  reproduced  the 
order  of  the  names  in  question  in  the  preceding  scene.  If  the  charac- 
ters common  to  both  scenes  chanced  to  speak  in  a  different  order  in 
the  second,  the  order  of  names  derived  in  this  manner  was  unusual. 

Such  is  Spengel's  theory.  Seyffert  seems  rather  inclined  to  accept  it. 
I  cannot  believe,  however,  that  it  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  unusual  order  of  names  in  the  scene-headings.  In  any  two  suc- 
cessive scenes  which  have  one  or  more  characters  in  common,  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  a  copyist,  by  reference  to  the  heading  of  the 
first,  to  determine  the  names  for  which  the  abbreviation  in  the  second 
was  used,  unless  aJl  the  characters  active  in  the  first  scene  remained  on 
the  stage  for  the  second.  If  the  names  had  been  supplied  in  this  way, 
it  is  obvious  that  errors  would  easily  have  been  made.  Scarcely  an 
error  in  the  names  given  by  the  headings  in  mss.  of  Terence  can  be 
pointed  out.  If  the  copyist  was  obliged  to  examine  the  dialogue  of  the 
scene  in  the  heading  of  which  the  abbreviation  was  used,  it  is  not  clear 
why  he  should  have  referred  to  the  heading  of  the  first  scene  at  all. 

Another  objection  to  the  theory  is  that  Spengel  assumes  the  common 
use  of  EIDEM  and  idem  in  early  mss.  No  instance  of  such  an  abbrevia- 
tion occurs  in  the  Bembinus  of  Terence.  In  the  Ambrosian  palimpsest 
of  Plautus  very  few  words  denoting  the  roles  of  characters  have  survived 
the  erasure  of  the  original  writing.  The  word  idem  is  found  twice,  and 
is  used,  apparently,  in  place  of  the  names  of  characters.^    It  is  almost 


*  Pom.  5,  3  (v.  1 120);  5,  5  (v.  1280). 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Scene- Headings  a7id  Miniatures  in   Terence 


65 


certain,  however,  that  the  names  of  characters  were  usually  given  in  this 
MS.,  so  that  the  use  of  idem  in  the  two  places  mentioned  must  be  con- 
sidered rare.  In  the  later  mss.,  where  these  words  are  not  uncommon, 
they  are  very  rarely  in  Plautus,  never  in  Terence,  used  in  place  of  the 
names.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  tendency  to  omit  these  words  in 
the  scene-headings.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  that  they  have 
crept  into  the  scene-headings  in  some  of  the  later  mss.  of  Terence.^ 
They  do  not  always  refer  to  the  characters  in  the  preceding  scene,  but 
are  found  sometimes  with  names  of  characters  who  have  just  come  upon 
the  stage.^  For  these  reasons  I  question  Spengel's  right  to  assume  the 
use  of  such  abbreviations  in  early  mss. 

The  theory  can  easily  be  tested  in  any  ms.  by  the  scene-headings 
which  have  the  names  of  characters  arranged  in  an  unusual  order.  If 
it  gives  the  true  explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the  disorder  arose,  in 
every  pair  of  scenes  which  have  some  characters  in  common,  the  scene- 
heading  of  the  second,  if  this  is  unusual  in  any  way,  should  present  the 
names  in  question  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  found  in  the  first. 
Of  the  twelve  scene-headings  in  the  Bembinus  which  have  an  unusual 
order  of  names,  every  one  has  at  least  two  characters  active  in  the 
preceding  scene.  In  every  instance  it  is  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
names  of  such  characters  that  the  disorder  exists.  In  five  scenes 
the  same  order  of  names  is  given,*  in  five  it  is  different,*  and  in  two 
scenes  two  names  are  wrongly  in  the  same  relative  order,  while  a  third 
name  is  in  a  different  and  correct  position.*  The  very  fact,  however, 
that  the  third  name  is  in  another  and  correct  position  is  evidence  that 
the  other  two  names  were  not  taken  from  the  preceding  heading,  for 
in  that  case  we  should  expect  all  the  names  to  stand  in  the  same  rela- 
tive order.  Leaving  these  out  of  consideration,  Spengel's  theory  can 
explain  the  origin  of  the  disorder  in  only  Half  the  instances.  In  the 
other  half  it  fails  precisely  for  the  reason  that  the  order  is  not  the  same 


\ 


as  that  in  the  several  scenes  immediately  preceding.  This  equal  division 
of  the  scene-headings  when  tested  by  the  theory  is  about  the  result  that 
would  be  expected  with  any  incorrect  theory.  It  is  probable,  therefore, 
that  it  is  wholly  due  to  chance  that  the  theory  does  seem  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  disorder  in  half  the  headings. 

For  the  reasons  which  I  have  given,  the  explanation  proposed  by 
Spengel  seems  very  doubtful.  It  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Bembinus. 
If  it  is  tested  by  the  rest  of  the  mss.,  the  results  are  much  the  same. 

So  far  as  I  am  aware,  these  are  the  only  theories  offered  in  explana- 
tion of  the  unusual  order  of  names  in  certain  scene-headings.  Since 
none  of  them  appears  to  be  satisfactory,  the  problem  deserves  further 
study.  The  solution  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  scene-headings  them- 
selves, but  must  be  sought  in  the  miniatures  with  which  a  few  mss. 
are  illustrated.  The  evidence  which  will  be  presented  will  make  it 
clear,  it  is  believed,  that  a  very  close  relationship  exists  between  the 
order  of  figures  in  the  miniatures  and  the  order  of  names  in  the  scene- 
headings.  Before  this  evidence  can  be  presented,  it  is  necessary  to 
turn  for  a  time  from  the  scene-headings  to  consider  certain  questions 
connected  with  the  miniatures. 

Figures  of  Characters  in  the  Miniatures 

Students  of  ancient  life  have  studied  the  miniatures  chiefly  with  the 
purpose  of  discovering,  if  possible,  their  place  in  the  history  of  art,  their 
history,  and  the  evidence  which  they  preserve  about  the  dress,  the 
masks,  and  the  gestures  of  ancient  actors.     The  relationship  existing 
between  the  miniatures  and  the  text  of  Terence  is  a  subject  that  has 
scarcely  been  touched.     From  the  time  of  Mme.  Dacier  it  has  been 
believed  that  the  pictures  are  a  valuable  source  of  information  about  the 
ancient  performance  of  the  plays.     Wieseler  had  frequent  occasion  to 
remark  the  artist's  acquaintance  with  the  text  of  the  comedies.     This  is 
a  theme,  however,  which  has  yet  to  receive  adequate  treatment.     In 
other  respects  this  subject  seems  to  have  been  neglected.     No  one, 
apparently,  has  ever  perceived  that  the  artist  adopted  a  definite  prin- 
ciple in  the  arrangement  of  the  figures  in  the  miniatures,  and  in  the 
distribution  of  the  miniatures  through  the  text  of  the  several  plays. 
The  first  of  these  two  points  is  properly  discussed  at  this  place.     The 


66 


John  Calvin  Watson 


second  will  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  scene- 
division.* 

Even  a  cursory  examination  of  the  miniatures  must  convince  any  one 
that  the  artist  who  first  prepared  them  had  studied  carefully  the  text 
of  the  plays.  Numerous  examples  from  the  attitudes  and  gestures  of 
characters,  from  objects  carried  by  them,  or  even  from  stage  accessories 
might  be  given  in  support  of  this  view,  but  these  will  be  mentioned  only 
when  they  are  necessary  in  the  identification  of  a  figure.  The  number 
of  characters  shown  in  the  miniatures  illustrates  the  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  text  on  the  part  of  the  artist.  The  number  is  almost  always  that 
required  by  the  dialogue.  In  one  place,  however,  the  artist  was  in 
error.  Before  Haut.  2,  4  (v.  381),  Clitipho  is  shown,  though  he  is 
compelled  by  Syrus  in  v.  380  to  leave  the  stage.  The  cause  of  the 
error  is  not  apparent,  but  it  might  easily  have  arisen  if  the  author  of 
the  miniatures  found  the  nota  of  Clitipho  written  fcy  mistake  in  the 
new  scene.* 

Before  Hec,  5,  4  (v.  841),  the  figure  of  Pamphilus  appears  twice  in 
the  same  picture.*  No  parallel  to  this  exists  elsewhere  in  the  miniatures. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  the  artist  sometimes  tried  to  show  two  stages 
of  the  action  in  one  picture,  a  point  which  will  be  mentioned  in  another 
place.*  It  will  be  shown  later  that,  while  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  picture  in  this  place,  there  are  some 
reasons  for  believing  that  it  has  not  come  down  unchanged  from  the 
artist's  hand.*  It  has  been  believed  that  in  two  other  places  the  artist 
represented  a  character  twice  in  the  same  picture.  The  miniatures  of  Hec, 
3,  4  (v.  415)  show  the  figures  of  three  slaves  and  the  youth  Pamphilus. 
According  to  the  interpretation  of  Umpfenbach,  the  two  slaves  on  the 
left  are  Parmeno  and  Sosia,  the  two  characters  on  the  right,  Pamphilus 
and  the  same  Parmeno."  This  view  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  almost 
certainly  wrong.     In  the  period  from  the  opening  of  the  scene  to  the 


*  See  p.  133  ff. 

'  A  passage  in  the  scene,  v.  20  f.,  is  not  inappropriate  to  Clitipho,  and,  as  has 
been  done  by  Faber,  may  have  been  assigned  to  him  by  the  artist. 

^  About  the  miniature  at  this  place  in  P,  Umpfenbach  had  no  information.  Like 
those  in  the  other  mss.  it  has  four  figures. 

*  See  p.  73. 

^  See  p.  161  f.  •  Cf.  ad  loc,  ed.  Ter. 


Scene-Headings  and  Mi^iiatnres  in   Tereiice 


6y 


sixteenth  verse  there  are  at  least  three  slaves  on  the  stage.*  WTien 
Parmeno,  in  v.  430  of  the  play,  accosts  Pamphilus,  he  turns  from  the 
other  slaves  with  whom  he  came  upon  the  stage.  The  third  slave  is  not 
named  in  the  dialogue,  but  the  artist  rightly  included  him  in  the  picture. 
A  similar  error,  as  it  seems,  has  been  made  by  Schlee  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  miniatures  before  And.  3,  i  (v.  459).^  The  characters 
are  divided  into  three  groups  of  two  figures  each.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  second  figure  of  the  second  group  represents  Lesbia,  the 
obsteirix,  Schlee  believed  that  she  is  shown  also  with  Glycerium  in 
the  first  group.  If  the  figure  with  Glycerium  must  be  identified,  it  is 
much  more  probably  that  of  Archylis,  who  earlier  in  the  play  sends 
Mysis  to  summon  the  midwife.*  The  fact  that  Lesbia,  at  her  departure 
in  the  following  scene,  leaves  Archylis  in  charge  of  Glycerium  is  in  favor 
of  this  view.  Yet  it  is  never  easy  to  distinguish  between  the  figures  of 
female  characters.*  The  appearance,  therefore,  of  the  figures  in  ques- 
tion is  of  little  weight,  but  even  in  this  respect  the  view  here  presented 
has  quite  as  much  to  commend  it  as  that  of  Schlee. 

If  the  interpretation  of  the  last  two  miniatures  is  correct,  it  is  clear 
that  the  artist  read  the  text  of  Terence  carefully,  in  order  to  determine 
the  number  of  characters  active  in  each  scene.  This  is  further  shown 
by  the  rest  of  the  miniatures  which  contain  mute  characters.  Including 
the  two  already  mentioned,  there  are  fourteen  miniatures  of  this  kind.^ 
In  all  of  these,  except  that  before  And.  3,  i  (v.  459),  the  presence  of 
mute  characters  is  easily  explained  by  the  dialogue.  In  one  instance, 
Hec.  4,  2  (v.  577),  the  scene  before  which  the  mute  character  is  shown 
contains  no  evidence  that  this  character  is  on  the  stage.  It  is  only 
from  the  following  scene  that  we  learn  of  his  presence.  Even  in  the 
exception  named  above,  there  is  no  reason  to  object  to  the  presence  of 
a  character  with  Glycerium  that  is  not  mentioned  in  the  dialogue  of  this 
scene.    The  picture  would  have  been  less  appropriate  if  Glycerium  had 


3  V.  228. 


>  Cf.  vv.  359,  409,  429.  «  op.  cit.,  p.  6. 

*  Cf,  p.  74. 

*  The  complete  list  is  as  follows :  And.  1,1  (v.  28) ;  i,  4  (v.  228) ;  3,  i  (v.  459) ; 
Eun.  2,  2  (V.  232);  3,  2  (v.  454);  3,  3  (v.  507);  3,  4  (v.  539);  4,  7  (v.*  771); 
Phonn.  2,  3  (v.  348);   Hec.  3,  4  (v.  415);   4,  2  (v.  577);    5,  2  (v.  767);  Ad.  2,  i 

(v.  15s);  3.  3.  10  (v.  364).     Eun.  5,  4  (v.  923),  as  given  in  the  mss.,  cannot  be 
included. 


6S 


John  Calvin  Watson 


been  represented  as  alone  at  this  place.'  If  the  figure  with  Glycerium 
is  that  of  Archylis,  we  have  another  proof  of  the  artist's  thorough 
knowledge  of  this  play.  In  every  instance,  therefore,  where  the  artist 
has  depicted  the  figures  of  mute  characters,  his  action  is  justified  by  the 
text  of  Terence.  In  most  cases,  if  he  had  failed  to  do  this,  his  pictures 
would  have  been  inadequate  or  even  inappropriate. 

It  is  not  an  invariable  rule,  however,  that  the  figures  of  mute  charac- 
ters, known  from  the  dialogue  to  have  been  on  the  stage,  are  shown  in 
the  miniatures.  To  determine  precisely  the  number  of  such  scenes  is 
difficult,  because  the  evidence  is  not  always  clear.  It  is  certain  that  in 
six  scenes  mute  characters  participated  in  the  action,  though  their 
figures  do  not  appear  in  the  pictures.  We  must  suppose  that  several 
amillae,  said,  in  one  place,  perhaps  in  jest,  to  have  been  more  than  ten, 
come  upon  the  stage  in  Haut.  2,  4  (v.  381).*  Thais,  when  about  to 
leave  the  stage,  in  Eun,  3,  2,  53  (v.  506),  seems  to  direct  two  or  more 
ancillae  to  follow  her.*  In  the  same  way  Bacchis,  in  Hec,  5,  2  (v.  767), 
has  two  ancillae  attending  her  who  must  have  come  with  her  upon  the 
stage  in  the  preceding  scene  (v.  727).*  In  these  four  scenes  the 
ancillae  are  mute  characters  throughout  the  plays  in  question.*  In  two 
scenes  characters  are  known  to  have  been  present  without  participation 
in  the  dialogue,  though  they  speak  in  each  case  both  in  the  preceding 
and  in  the  following  scene.  In  Fhorm,  4,  2,  10  (v.  600),  the  words  of 
Geta  show  that  Demipho  and  Chremes  are  still  on  the  stage.  In  Ad. 
2,  3  (v.  254),  Sannio  must  have  remained  on  the  stage,  for  in  the  last 
verse  of  the  preceding  scene  he  is  ordered  by  Syrus  to  remain. 

In  three  other  places,  under  circumstances  precisely  similar  to  those 
in  the  last  two  scenes  under  discussion,  there  is  some  reason  to  think 
that  characters  remained  on  the  stage  without  taking  any  part  in  the 
dialogue,  though  their  figures  are  not  shown  in  the  miniatures.  In  each 
instance  there  is  no  sign  of  the  departure  of  the  character  in  question 
immediately  before  the  new  scene,  or  of  his  return  immediately  after  it. 
Since  the  three  scenes  are  all  short,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 


*  On  the  position  of  Glycerium  with  reference  to  the  stage,  see  p.  76. 
«  Cf.  vv.  245  f.,  451,  744,  751. 

'  Donas,  one  of  the  ancillae,  returns  to  the  stage  in  v.  615. 

*  Cf .  vv.  773  and  793. 

*  Donas,  in  Eun.  3,  2,  53  (v.  506),  is  later  a  speaking  character. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


69 


the  characters  referred  to  left  the  stage,  except  the  fact  that  their  names 
do  not  appear  in  the  scene-headings,  or  their  figures  in  the  miniatures. 
The  text  gives  no  direct  evidence,  but  in  one  instance  it  does  have 
some  indication  of  the  presence  of  one  of  these  characters  on  the  stage. 
In  Eun,  V.  726,  Dorias  seems  still  to  have  the  jewelry  mentioned  by  her 
in  V.  627.  If  she  had  entered  the  house  of  Thais  before  4,  2  (v.  629), 
it  is  not  likely  that  she  would  have  brought  it  out  upon  the  stage  again. 
For  Eun.  5,  7  (v.  1025),  there  is  even  less  evidence,  but  since  only 
nine  verses  intervene  between  those  in  which  Parmeno  was  a  speaker, 
it  is  improbable  that  he  left  the  stage  during  the  short  scene  in  which 
Gnatho  and  Thraso  were  the  speakers.  In  the  same  way  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  Syrus  left  the  stage  before  Ad.  5,  6  (v.  889). 
If  he  did  so,  he  must  have  entered  the  house  of  Micio  and  returned 
with  Aeschinus  in  v.  899.  Since  Aeschinus  is  surprised  at  finding 
Demea  on  the  stage,  it  is  improbable  that  Syrus  returned  with  Aeschi- 
nus, for  he  would  scarcely  have  failed  to  mention  Demea's  kindness  to 
him. 

These  reasons  are  apparently  of  little  weight,  but  they  give  some 
indication  that  the  characters  named  remained  on  the  stage.  The  lack 
of  evidence  that  they  left  the  stage  has  greater  weight.  In  the  two 
scenes  of  the  Eunuchus,  Dziatzko  believed  that  the  characters  were  on 
the  stage  without  participating  in  the  dialogue,  for  he  gives  their  names 
in  the  headings  of  the  scenes.  About  the  scene  in  the  Adelphoe  he  is  in 
doubt.i  Fleckeisen  added  the  name  in  the  heading  of  this  scene  also 
in  his  first  edition.  In  the  second  he  omits  all  of  them.  Spengel  does 
not  mention  the  two  scenes  in  the  Eunuchus.  About  the  scene  in  the 
Adelphoe  he  expresses  some  doubt,  but  inclines  to  the  view  that  Syrus 
left  the  stage.2  His  grounds  for  this  belief  depend  upon  the  Bembinus. 
Since  this  rightly  has  the  name  of  Sannio  in  the  heading  before  Ad. 
2i  3  (v.  254),  he  regards  the  omission  of  Syrus'  name  in  the  heading 
before  v.  889  as  evidence  that  he  did  not  remain  on  the  stage.  It  will 
be  shown  later  that  the  scene-headings  of  the  Bembinus  have  no  such 
independent  value. 

Three  other  scenes  require  some  notice.     It  was  pointed  out  above 
that,  in  Hec.  5,  i  (v.  727)  and  5,  2  (v.  767),  Bacchis  was  accompanied 


*  Cf.  adn.  crit.  ad  loc.  Praef.  cd.  1884,  p.  xl. 


'  Op.  cit.y  p.  270. 


70 


John  Calvin  Watson 


by  two  ancillae.  After  v.  793  she  enters  the  house  of  Phidippus  with 
them.  When  she  comes  out,  at  v.  806,  it  is  possible  that  in  an  actual 
performance  she  was  still  attended,  and  that  the  ancillae  remained  to 
the  end  of  the  play.  There  is  nothing  in  the  dialogue  to  indicate  the 
presence  of  these  characters,  and  they  are  not  shown  in  the  miniatures. 
The  third  scene  referred  to  is  Ad,  3,  3,  10  (v.  364).  In  this  place 
Syrus  addresses  two  characters  who  have  no  part  in  the  dialogue.  The 
language  shows  that  both  were  assistants  in  the  preparation  of  the 
dinner,  and  it  is  probable  that  they  returned  from  market  with  Syrus. 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  addressed  in  about  the  same  manner, 
the  figure  of  Dromo  alone  is  shown. 

The  reasons  for  the  omission  of  the  mute  characters  in  the  miniatures 
of  the  scenes  mentioned  above  are  not  always  clear,  but  in  some  in- 
stances they  can  be  shown.  The  doubt  as  to  the  presence  of  such 
characters  in  the  last  six  scenes  under  discussion  accounts  satisfactorily 
for  the  omission.  For  in  Ad,  3,  3,  10  (y.  364),  it  is  exceedmgly 
doubtful  whether  the  duties  of  Dromo  and  Stephanio  were  performed 
on  the  stage.^  In  the  last  two  scenes  of  the  Hecyra,  even  if  stage 
license  would  not  permit  the  two  ancillae  of  Bacchis  to  remain  behind, 
when  she  leaves  the  house  of  Phidippus,  the  artist  may  be  excused  for 
availing  himself  of  such  a  liberty.  If  they  actually  did  return  to  the 
stage  with  Bacchis,  the  number  of  mute  characters  at  first  equalled,  or 
exceeded  that  of  the  speaking  characters,  and  there  is  little  excuse  for 
the  long  monologue  of  Bacchis,  beginning  in  v.  816.  Whatever  the 
Romans  permitted  in  an  actual  performance,  it  is  certain  that  the  artist 
in  no  case  painted  mute  characters  in  excess  of  the  speakere.^ 

In  the  remaining  six  places,  where  the  presence  of  mute  characters 
on  the  stage  is  certain,  the  omission  of  their  figures  in  the  pictures  is 
more  difficult  to  explain.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  in  four  of 
these  the  mute  characters  are  ancillae,  the  least  important  characters 
in  a  play.  There  may  be  some  significance  in  this.  Their  presence 
is  much  more  evident  than  in  several  other  places  where  mute 
characters  are  shown.  It  is  improbable,  therefore,  that  the  artist 
failed  to  see  that  in  the  scenes  referred  to  they  were  active,  though  not 
speaking.     More  probably  he  purposely  omitted  them.     In  Eun.  3,  2 


'  See  p.  128. 


See,  however,  p.  160,  n.  i. 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


71 


(v.  454),  the  omission  can  be  accounted  for  otherwise.  The  ancillae 
addressed  by  Thais  in  the  last  verse  of  the  scene  were  not  on  the  stage 
at  the  time  of  the  action  represented  in  the  miniatures.  These  show 
Parmeno  presenting  for  Thais'  inspection  the  eunuch  and  the  Ethiopian 
slave,  and  must,  therefore,  be  designed  to  illustrate  v.  471  ff.  The 
picture  cannot  be  intended  to  show  any  of  the  action  after  v.  492,  for 
it  is  at  this  point  that  Thais  leads  the  eunuch  and  the  Ethiopian  woman 
into  the  house.  From  v.  581  it  is  nearly  certain  that  the  ancillae 
addressed  by  Thais  in  v.  506  did  not  appear  on  the  stage  until  Thais* 
return  in  v.  499.  Obviously,  they  could  not  be  shown  in  a  picture 
referring  to  an  earlier  part  of  the  scene. ^ 

In  the  two  places  left,  the  omission  is  of  characters  that  are  mute 
only  in  these  scenes.  The  artist  could  not  have  failed  to  recognize  that 
they  remained  on  the  stage.  If  the  omission  is  to  be  charged  against 
him,  it  must  be  considered  an  error.  It  will  be  shown  later  that  there 
are  grounds  for  believing  that  the  omission  is  not  due  to  the  artist,  but 
to  copyists.^ 

Order  of  Figures  in  the  Miniatures 

Since  there  is  no  instance  of  the  omission  of  a  speaking  character  in 
the  miniatures,  I  turn  to  the  consideration  of  the  principle  adopted  by 
the  artist  in  arranging  the  figures  in  the  pictures.  It  is  certain  that  he 
had  no  theories  about  the  distribution  of  the  houses  in  the  rear  of  the 
stage.  It  is  equally  certain  that  he  was  ignorant  of,  or  disregarded,  the 
convention  of  the  Greeks  according  to  which  characters  from  the  forum 
and  city  entered  from  the  right  of  the  audience,  those  from  the  harbor 
or  foreign  parts,  from  the  left.*  The  principle  of  arrangement,  in  short, 
is  precisely  that  found  in  the  scene-headings.  Wherever  the  dialogue 
does  not  demand,  or  at  least  suggest,  some  peculiar  collocation  of 
figures,  these  are  shown  in  the  order  in  which  the  characters  they 
represent  participate  in  the  dialogue.  In  five  scenes  characters  which 
have  the  same  role,  but  do  not  enter  the  dialogue  one  immediately  after 


*  It  seems  very  doubtful  whether  Pythias  was  upon  the  stage  before  v.  45,  but  the 
artist  assumed  that  she  came  with  Thais  at  the  opening  of  the  scene. 

*  See  p.  160. 

^  Chiefly  upon  evidence  drawn  from  Plautus  and  Terence,  the  authenticity  of  this 
tradition  has  been  challenged  by  A.  Miiller,  Philologus^  LIX  (1900),  p.  9  ff. 


J2 


yohn  Calvin  Watson 


the  other,  are  shown  together  in  the  miniatures.  In  five  other  scenes 
of  this  kind  the  dialogue  does  not  permit  this  arrangement,  or  at  least 
it  suggests  another.^  E\'en  in  this  respect,  therefore,  the  miniatures 
show  the  same  tendency  as  the  scene-headings.  The  characteristic 
arrangement  of  names  and  of  figures  is  the  same.  Stated  in  precise 
terms,  this  is  as  follows :  The  names  in  the  scene-headings  and  the 
figures  in  the  miniatures  are  arranged  at  the  beginning  of  a  scene  in 
the  order  of  the  first  participation  of  the  characters  in  the  dialogue 
below,  except  that  where  two  characters  of  the  same  role  do  not  enter 
the  dialogue  in  succession,  these  are  united,  and  the  group  thus  formed 
is  given  the  place  which  the  first  of  the  characters  to  speak  would  natur- 
ally receive.  This  order  of  names  in  the  scene-headings,  or  of  figures 
in  the  miniatures,  I  shall  call  the  usual  or  normal  order. 

In  the  miniatures,  as  in  the  scene-headings,  instances  are  not  infre- 
quent where  the  usual  order  of  characters  is  not  found.  It  is  almost 
certain  that  this  cannot  be  charged  to  the  carelessness  of  copyists,  as 
has  been  done  with  the  disorder  in  certain  scene-headings.  If  the 
order  of  figures  in  the  miniatures  has  been  changed,  it  must  have  been 
designed,  but  there  is  little  evidence  of  intentional  changes.^  The 
artist's  motive  for  any  deviation  from  his  usual  custom  in  the  collocation 
of  figures  must  be  found  in  the  subject-matter  of  the  scenes  where 
the  deviation  occurs.  He  tried  to  give  a  picture  of  the  characters  as 
he  conceived  them  to  be  grouped  at  some  interesting  moment  in  the 
scene.  Usually,  there  was  nothing  to  deter  him  from  grouping  the 
characters  according  to  the  order  in  which  they  speak  for  the  first  time 
in  the  scene.  In  some  places,  however,  he  could  not  do  this  and  give 
any  reasonably  correct  picture  of  the  action.  In  such  scenes  he  aban- 
doned his  usual  practice  and  distributed  the  characters  to  suit  his 
interpretation  of  the  text. 

The  order  of  characters  depends  frequently  on  the  part  of  the  scene 
selected  by  the  artist  for  illustration.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  in  the 
interpretation  of  some  of  the  miniatures  to  determine  the  passage  to 
which  they  refer.     In  scenes,  however,  which  have  a  small  number  of 


*  On  Phorm.  5,  3  (v.  784),  see  p.  151  f. 

*  In  the  Ambrosianus  an  example  is  probably  found  before  Eun.  4,  7  (v.  771). 
See  pp.  87  and  90;  for  other  evidence  of  changes,  see  p.  158  ff. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


n 


characters,  it  frequently  is  difficult,  or  even  impossible,  to  do  this.  In 
scenes  where  the  number  of  characters  is  larger,  this  is  not  only  possible, 
but  usually  it  is  very  easy  to  do.  In  most  scenes  the  limits  of  the 
passage  to  which  the  picture  refers  are  rather  narrow.  Frequently 
the  very  verse  which  the  artist  had  in  mind  is  obvious.  Even  where 
the  miniatures  cannot  be  restricted  to  a  single  verse,  every  characteristic 
mark  which  they  contain  can  usually  be  explained  by  the  text  in  a 
connected  passage  of  a  small  number  of  verses. 

It  is  possible  that  in  a  few  scenes  the  artist  painted  two  stages  of  the 
action  in  a  single  picture.  A  stock  example  of  such  a  miniature  is  that 
preserved  htioxQ  Haut,  i,  i  (v.  58).!  Here  Chremes  is  shown  trying 
the  weight  of  the  rastri,  as  he  seems  to  do  in  v.  92  of  the  play.  But 
an  implement  of  the  same  nature  is  held  by  the  figure  of  Menedemus, 
a  situation  which  illustrates  v.  88  f.  If  the  repetition  of  the  figure  of 
Pamphilus  before  ffec.  5,  4  (v.  841)  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  artist,  it 
can  be  explained  only  in  this  way.^  That  the  artist  frequently  used  this 
expedient  I  do  not  believe.^  If  this  had  been  his  practice,  his  rule  of 
never  showing  characters  together  who  were  not  engaged  on  the  stage 
at  the  same  moment  would  have  been  needless.*  In  most  pictures  the 
attitudes  and  gestures  of  all  the  figures  are  in  such  harmony  that  they 
clearly  refer  to  a  single  passage. 

With  these  premises  I  turn  to  the  consideration  of  the  miniatures 
that  have  a  doubtful  or  an  unusual  order  of  figures.  It  seems  advisable 
to  do  this,  first,  because  for  most  miniatures  of  this  kind  the  order  of 
characters  has  never  been  determined ;  secondly,  because  the  determi- 
nation of  the  order  of  characters  is  preliminary  to  any  comparison  of 
this  order  with  that  of  names  in  the  scene-headings.  The  attempt  will 
be  made  in  each  case  to  point  out  the  part,  or  parts,  of  the  scene 


»  The  Vatican  miniature  before  this  scene  was  taken  from  D'Agincourt  by 
Wieseler,  Theatergebdude  u.  Denkm.  des  Buhnenwes.  bet  den  Griech.  u.  Rom.  Taf. 
X,  6.  It  is  reproduced  also  by  Schreiber,  Kulturhistorisch.  Biideratlas,  Taf.  Ill,  6. 
In  the  English  edition,  edited  by  Anderson  with  the  title  Atlas  of  Classical  Anti- 
quitiesy  it  is  given  in  PI.  Ill,  Fig.  6. 

*  See  p.  161  f. 

^  Nearly  certain  examples  are  found  in  the  pictures  before  And,  3,  2  (v.  481); 
cf.  p.  -JT,  Haul.  5,  2  (v.  954);  cf.  p.  83. 

*  Cf.  p.  134  ff. 


74 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


75 


chosen  by  the  artist  for  illustration,  the  correct  order  in  which  the 
figures  are  painted,  and,  in  case  these  are  not  arranged  in  the  usual 
manner,  the  reasons  for  the  deviation.  No  notice  will  be  taken  of 
scenes  where  the  customary  collocation  of  figures  is  found,  and  the 
identification  of  the  characters  is  reasonably  certain.  It  has  already 
been  shown  by  Schlee  that  the  names  assigned  the  characters  in  the 
miniatures  have  little  authority.*  This  is  especially  true  in  scenes  where 
the  order  of  figures  is  uncertain'  or  unusual.  The  order  of  names  will 
be  given  for  the  several  mss.,  partly  because  the  critical  apparatus  of 
Umpfenbach's  edition  is  inadequate  for  this,  and  in  part  for  later 
reference  in  trying  to  determine  the  source  and  the  history  of  the 
scene-headings  in  these  mss.* 

•  The  identification  of  the  figures  in  the  miniatures  is  in  some  places 
exceedingly  difficult.  A  good  example  of  such  difficulty  is  found  in  the 
pictures  before  Eun.  4,  7  (v.  77 1 ),  which  have  been  interpreted  in  three 
different  ways  by  modern  scholars.  It  must  be  understood  at  the  out- 
set, therefore,  that  a  positive  identification  of  the  figures  is  sometimes 
impossible.  This  is  particularly  true  of  miniatures  which  have  two  or 
more  characters  of  the  same  role.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  distinguish  between 
two  female  characters  in  a  picture,  unless  there  is  a  difference  in  their 
dress,  as  between  a  free  woman  and  an  ancilla.  In  some  pictures  also 
there  is  little  difference  in  the  appearance  of  free  women  and  young 
men.*  In  miniatures  containing  characters  so  easily  confused,  the 
patience  of  the  copyists  was  sorely  tried,  and  their  errors  are  numerous. 
In  the  discussion  of  such  miniatures  these  characters  have  been  classed 
as  doubtful,  unless  reasonably  clear  signs  exist  by  which  the  identifica- 
tion can  be  made.  In  the  case  of  characters  wearing  masks,  it  is  obvious 
that  there  is  little  room  for  differences  of  expression  or  play  of  features. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  many  ways  in  which  characters  easily  confused, 
because  of  their  similar  appearance,  can  be  distinguished.  The  artist's 
conception  is  frequently  shown  by  the  attitudes  or  gestures  of  figures, 
by  their  dress,  or  by  objects  carried  by  them.  When  characters  are 
newly  come  upon  the  stage  from  one  of  the  houses  in  the  rear,  they  are 


i 


*  Op.  cit.^  p.  6f. 

*  Cf.  p.  163  ff. 


■  CI.  the  pictures  before  And,  3,  i  (v.  459) ;  Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723) ;  5,  5  Tv.  1045). 


identified  by  their  proximity  to  doors  shown  in  the  picture.  Frequently 
they  can  be  identified  by  their  proximity  to  other  characters  who  are 
known,  and  with  whom  they  are  closely  associated.  In  some  places, 
however,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  the  identity  of  the  figures.  This 
is  especially  true  of  scenes  in  which  the  characters  are  two  senes. 

After  these  introductory  remarks  on  the  identification  of  figures  in 
the  miniatures,  the  scenes,  in  which  the  order  of  characters  is  unusual 
or  in  doubt,  will  be  considered.  Beginning  with  the  Andria,  such 
scenes  will  be  given  in  the  order  of  plays  in  the  text  edition  of  Dziatzko 
and  the  second  edition  of  Fleckeisen. 

And.  2,  I  (v.  301).  The  miniatures  illustrate  the  opening  of  the 
scene.  Charinus  and  Byrria  are  shown  on  the  left  with  their  arms 
about  each  other.  Byrria  is  trying  to  console  the  dejected  youth. 
Since  they  do  not  see  Pamphilus  before  the  tenth  verse  of  the  scene,  it 
is  obvious  that  the  figures  of  the  young  men  could  not  be  shown  together 
in  the  usual  way.  The  names  are  correctly  assigned  in  O,  P,  but  in  C 
the  names  by  the  first  hand  were  written  in  the  usual  order,  thus  bring- 
ing the  names  of  the  youths  together  in  the  heading.  This  error  of 
assignment  has  been  later  corrected  by  some  one,  who,  without  erasing 
the  original  names,  interchanged  those  of  Pamphilus  and  Byrria,  writing 
the  new  names  above  the  old  ones. 

And,  2,  2  (v.  338).  The  miniatures  refer  to  the  beginning  of  the 
scene,  but  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  by  which  to  identify  the 
figures  of  the  two  young  men  on  the  right.  If  Charinus  is  the  figure 
nearer  Davus,  the  characters  are  in  the  usual  order.  If  Pamphilus  has 
this  position,  the  collocation  is  unusual.  In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are 
assigned  in  the  latter  order,  but  there  is  nothing  in  either  the  miniatures 
or  the  dialogue  that  seems  to  require  it. 

And,  2,  5  (v.  412).  The  passage  selected  for  illustration  is  v.  7  ff. 
of  the  scene.  About  the  first  figure  on  the  left,  Umpfenbach  labored 
under  a  misapprehension,  for  he  supposed  that  it  represented  Davus. 
Aside  from  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  appearance  of  the 
figures  to  support  this  view,  the  third  verse  of  the  scene  caused  the 
artist  to  show  Byrria,  not  Davus,  following  Simo.  Though  Byrria  and 
Simo  are  the  first  characters  to  speak  in  this  scene,  the  figure  of  Davus 
is  neither  contiguous  to  that  of  Byrria,  as  a  character  of  the  same  role, 
nor  is  it  third  in  order  as  that  of  the  third  speaker  in.  the  scene.     The 


76 


John  Calvin  Watson 


artist  deviated  from  his  usual  custom  and  painted  Pamphilus  as  the  third 
character,  and  Davus  last  of  all.  The  reason  for  this  is  evidently  because 
Davus,  without  the  knowledge  of  Simo,  gives  advice  and  encouragement 
to  Pamphilus  in  the  meeting  with  his  father.  The  names  are  correctly 
assigned  in  C,  O,  P,  but  in  C  they  are  not  by  the  usual  hand,  and  the 
first  name  is  written  over  an  erasure.  They  are  probably  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  hand  which  made  nearly  all  the  corrections  elsewhere  in  the 
assignment  of  names  in  this  ms. 

And,  2,  6  (v.  432).  The  miniatures  cannot  be  referred  with  cer- 
tainty to  any  definite  part  of  the  scene.  The  two  figures  are  shown  in 
the  reverse  of  the  usual  order.  In  scenes  of  only  two  speakers  this 
order  cannot  be  explained  by  the  dialogue.  It  seems  probable  that  in 
this  place  the  artist  has  retained  from  the  previous  scene  the  relative 
positions  of  Simo  and  Davus.  In  C,  O,  P  the  assignment  of  names  is 
correct,  but  in  C  this  is  due  to  the  usual  corrector.  The  names  were 
written  by  the  first  hand  in  the  normal  order.  The  corrector  erased 
them  imperfectly  and  reversed  the  order. 

And,  3,  I  (v.  459).^  The  miniatures  cannot  be  intended  to  show 
the  stage  action  at  any  point  after  the  ninth  verse  of  the  scene,  for  it  is 
here  that  Mysis  and  Lesbia  enter  the  house.  They  seem  best  suited  to 
V.  6  ff.  Of  the  three  groups  of  characters,  Glycerium  and  the  mute 
character,  probably  Archylis,  on  the  extreme  left  and  within  the  house, 
have  already  been  mentioned.^  The  remaining  four  characters  are  on 
the  stage.  Mysis  and  Lesbia,  who  are  respectively  the  first  and  the 
fourth  speaker  of  the  scene,  come  upon  the  stage  in  conversation,  and 
enter  the  house  without  seeing  Simo  and  Davus.  They  are  properly, 
therefore,  shown  together  in  the  pictures.  On  the  right,  Davus  and 
Simo  are  correctly  shown  together,  but  the  artist  hardly  depended  upon 
the  text  in  fixing  the  position  of  Davus.  He  does  not  speak  in  the 
scene  until  after  Simo  does,  and  his  remarks  to  Simo  are  of  the  briefest 
possible  nature,  but  he  is  between  Simo  and  the  women,  and  appears  to 
be  trying  to  secure  the  attention  of  his  master,  in  order  to  prevent  his 
hearing  the  words  of  Mysis. 


/  A  photographic  reproduction  of  this  miniature  in  C  is  given  by  Beissel,  VoH' 
kanische  Miniaturen. 
*  See  p.  67. 


•I 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  JJ 

The  Dunelmensis  ms.  has  lost  this  miniature  with  some  of  the  text. 
In  P  no  names  are  assigned  the  figures,  although  some  later  person 
has  written  five  names  below  the  figures,  with  no  attempt  to  assign 
them  to  the  characters.  In  C  six  names  are  found,  none  of  them, 
except  probably  that  of  Mysis,  by  the  usual  hand.  The  rest  were  added 
by  the  corrector  after  he  had  erased  the  original  names.  Schlee  was 
certainly  misinformed  when  he  attributed  the  names  at  this  place  to  the 
usual  hand.^  The  assignment  of  the  name  Pamphilus  to  the  figure  of 
Lesbia  was  a  stupid  blunder  on  the  part  of  the  corrector,  especially 
since  there  is  no  young  man  on  the  stage  in  this  scene.  In  the 
miniatures,  however,  the  figures  of  free  women  are  very  similar  in 
appearance  to  those  of  young  men.  The  error,  therefore,  was  easily 
made  by  a  person  who  paid  no  regard  to  the  text.  The  assignment  of 
the  name  Lesbia  to  the  figure  supporting  Glycerium  is  equally  without 
authority. 

And,  3,  2  (v.  481).  In  this  place  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  minia- 
tures illustrate  two  widely  separated  portions  of  the  scene.  The  figure 
of  Lesbia  appears  on  the  left  at  the  door  of  Glycerium.  Since  Lesbia 
does  not  speak  after  the  eighth  verse  of  the  scene,  and  leaves  the  stage 
at  this  point,  we  must  suppose  that  this  part  of  the  picture  refers  only 
to  the  opening  verses.  The  gestures  of  Davus,  however,  indicate  that 
he  is  talking  to  Simo  about  Glycerium  and  her  friends,  for  he  is  clearly 
referring  to  Glycerium's  house.  It  is  highly  probable,  therefore,  that 
the  figures  of  Davus  and  Simo  are  intended  to  show  the  action  in  v.  3 1  ff. 
of  the  scene.  The  gestures  of  Davus,  toward  the  door  of  Glycerium's 
house,  explain  why  he  is  shown  second  in  the  picture  instead  of  last,  as 
he  would  have  been  in  the  normal  order.  The  names  are  correctly 
assigned  in  C,  O,  P. 

^^^'  3>  3  (v.  533)-  There  is  little  in  the  appearance  of  the  two 
senes  by  which  to  identify  them,  or  to  determine  the  part  of  the  scene 
to  which  the  miniatures  refer.  If  they  are  designed  to  illustrate  the 
first  three  verses  of  the  scene,  Chremes  is  probably  the  first  figure  on 
the  left,  but  if  they  are  intended  to  show  the  action  after  the  fifth  verse, 
this  figure  is  more  probably  that  of  Simo.  According  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  scenes  are  divided  at  this  place,  Simo  is  the  first  speaker,  but 


*  Op.  ciLy  p.  6. 


78 


John  Calvin  Watson 


the  place  of  scene-division  is  very  unusual.  Reference  will  be  made  to 
this  later,  when  the  distribution  of  the  miniatures  is  under  consideration.^ 
In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are  assigned  to  the  figures  in  the  usual  order,  the 
name  of  Simo  being  first. 

And,  3,  4  (v.  580).  The  passage  chosen  for  illustration  is  not  easily 
determined,  but  it  is  probably  early  in  the  scene.  Davus  is  the  first 
figure  on  the  left,  but  the  two  senes  are  in  the  reverse  of  the  usual 
order.  Since  Davus  and  Chremes  at  no  place  in  the  scene  address 
each  other,  the  third  figure,  shown  in  conversation  with  Davus,  must 
represent  Simo,  though  this  character  is  the  second  in  the  scene  to 
speak.  For  this  deviation  from  the  usual  arrangement  the  dialogue 
gives  no  reason.  It  must  be  ascribed  to  the  fancy  of  the  artist.  In  C, 
O,  P  the  names  are  assigned  in  the  regular  order  and  are,  therefore, 
wrong  for  the  last  two  figures.  In  P  they  are  by  a  later  hand,  since  in 
this  scene  no  names  were  written  by  the  usual  hand.  The  peculiar 
grouping  of  the  names  and  roles,  together  with  the  use  of  duo  instead 
of  II,  proves  that  this  heading  was  taken  from  a  manuscript  of  the  h 
family.2  It  is  not  probable  that  the  person  who  added  this  heading 
made  any  attempt  to  assign  the  names  to  the  figures.* 

And.  5,  3  (v.  872).  The  miniatures  illustrate  the  first  verse  of  the 
scene.  Simo,  with  extended  right  arm  and  pointing  forefinger,  is 
shown  addressing  Pamphilus,  while  Chremes  is  between  the  father  and 
son,  and  has  his  arm  around  Simo,  in  an  evident  attempt  to  restrain  the 
anger  of  the  latter.  This  explains  the  unusual  order  of  the  two  senes 
on  the  right.  Pamphilus  is  shown  first  on  the  left,  according  to  the 
usual  rule.  In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are  assigned  to  the  figures  in  the  usual 
order,  and  are  wrong,  therefore,  for  the  last  two. 

And,  5,  4  (v.  904).  The  pictures  refer  to  some  point  early  in  the 
scene.  Pamphilus  and  Crito  are  shown  on  the  left,  coming  from 
the  house  of  Glycerium.  Since  Crito,  the  first  speaker,  has  come  at  the 
request  of  Pamphilus,  the  fourth  speaker,  and  addresses  him  in  the  first 
two  verses  of  the  scene,  it  is  obvious  that  the  usual  arrangement  of  the 
figures  was  impossible.  By  painting  Pamphilus  first  on  the  left,  with 
Crito  second,  the  author  of  the  miniatures  has  suggested  the  relative 


'  See  p.  135. 

3  Cf.  And.  5,  4  (v.  904). 


»  Cf.  p.  165  f. 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


79 


1. 


order  of  these  characters  in  an  actual  performance  of  the  play.  Since 
Crito  is  shown  in  conversation  with  the  fourth  figure,  and  the  latter  is 
represented  with  right  arm  extended  toward  Crito  in  a  strong  gesture, 
it  is  very  probable  that  the  fourth  figure  is  that  of  Simo.  If  this  identi- 
fication is  correct,  the  miniatures  are  intended  to  illustrate  the  fifth 
verse  of  the  scene.  The  position  of  Chremes  between  the  other  two 
senes,  as  well  as  his  gesture  towards  Simo,  is  perfectly  natural,  for  it  is 
Chremes  who  makes  Crito  and  Simo  known  to  each  other. 

The  copyists  were  uncertain  about  the  assignment  of  names  in  this 
place,  for  no  names  were  written  by  the  first  hands  in  C,  P.  In  the 
former,  the  names  now  found  with  the  miniature  are  all  by  the  hand  to 
which  most  of  the  corrections  in  the  assignment  of  names  are  due.  The 
assignment  is  right,  except  that  the  figures  of  Chremes  and  Simo  have 
their  names  interchanged.  In  P  two  headings  are  found,  both  probably 
by  later  hands.  One  of  these,  certainly  to  be  ascribed  to  a  later  hand, 
has  no  reference  to  the  order  of  figures,  but  presents  the  names  in  the 
normal  order.  This  heading  was  taken  from  some  representative  of 
the  S  family,  as  is  shown  by  the  use  of  tres  rather  than  iii,  and  by  the 
peculiar  arrangement  of  the  names  and  the  roles  of  characters.^  The 
other  heading,  not  given  by  Umpfenbach,  has  the  names  abbreviated 
and  arranged  as  follows: 


PAM. 


CRI. 


CRE. 


SIM. 


These  names  are  correctly  assigned  to  the  figures.  It  is  possible  that 
they  were  written  by  the  same  hand  as  the  names  in  other  scenes,  but 
this  is  doubtful.  The  brownish  red  of  the  ink  differs  from  the  bright 
red  used  by  the  regular  rubricator.  More  probably  some  later  hand, 
here  as  in  some  other  places,  has  supplied  the  names/  and,  in  so  doing, 
has  imitated  the  form  of  letters  written  by  the  usual  hand.  In  O  the 
names  are  not  abbreviated,  nor  are  they  due  to  a  later  hand,  but  they 
are  rightly  assigned  as  in  P. 

Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242).  The  miniatures  are  designed  to  show  the  stage 
action  at  the  opening  of  the  scene,  for  Dromo,  who  leaves  the  stage  in 
the  ninth  verse  of  the  scene,  is  one  of  the  characters.  The  two  figures 
of  slaves  on  the  left  can  be  distinguished  only  by  their  gestures.     Since 


»  Cf.  p.  165  f. 


8o 


John  Calvin  Watson 


the  first  appears  to  be  giving  instructions  to  the  second,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  these  figures  represent  Syrus  and  Dromo,  and  are  in  the 
normal  collocation.  The  two  young  men  on  the  right  are  shown  by 
their  attitudes  to  be  in  the  reverse  of  the  usual  order.  The  reason  for 
this  is  evident.  Clinia  is  shown  nearer  the  slaves,  since  he  is  more 
interested  than  Clitipho  in  the  result  of  the  errand  from  which  the 
slaves  are  returning.  In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are  correctly  assigned  to 
the  figures,  but  in  F  the  normal  order  is  found.  For  the  figures  of  the 
young  men,  therefore,  the  assignment  is  wrong. 

Haut,  3,  I  (v.  410).  The  only  evidence  available  in  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  figures  is  found  in  the  gestures.  This  seems  so  uncertain, 
however,  that  I  see  no  means  of  assigning  the  names  with  any  degree 
of  probability.  In  the  four  mss.  the  names  of  the  old  men  are  in  the 
usual  order,  but  in  P  they  are  written  in  such  a  way  as  to  suggest  that 
the  rubricator  avoided  any  assignment  of  the  names  to  the  figures. 

Haut,  4,  I  (v.  614).  The  miniatures  show  the  nutrix^  who  leaves 
the  stage  after  the  fifth  verse,  and  must  be  referred,  therefore,  to  the 
opening  of  the  scene.  The  two  female  characters  are  on  the  left,  the 
two  male  characters  on  the  right.  Since  Chremes  is  the  second  speaker, 
and  the  nutrix  the  third,  the  picture  shows  a  violation  of  the  usual 
order.  The  cause  is  obvious.  The  two  women  enter  engaged  in 
conversation,  and  Sostrata  does  not  see  her  husband  until  in  the  ninth 
verse.  Chremes  and  Syrus  in  the  meantime  have  been  discussing  the 
actions  of  the  two  women.  In  C,  F,  O,  P  the  names  are  correctly 
assigned  to  the  figures. 

Haut,  4,  4  (v.  723).  The  five  characters  are  shown  in  two  groups, 
Bacchis,  Phrygia,  and  Clinia  on  the  left,  Dromo  and  Syrus  on  the  right. 
The  first  group  of  characters  enters  the  house  of  Menedemus  at  v.  2 1  of 
the  scene,  or  immediately  after  it,  and  it  is  at  this  point  that  Dromo  is 
called  out  of  the  same  house.  The  pictures,  therefore,  must  be  referred 
to  this  verse.  If  the  figures  were  arranged  in  the  usual  order,  this  would 
be  as  follows  :  Bacchis,  Clinia,  Syrus,  Dromo,  Phrygia.  Syrus  and  Dromo 
would  be  shown  together,  because  they  have  the  same  role,  though 
Phrygia  is  the  fourth  to  speak  in  the  scene,  Dromo  the  fifth.  The 
action  of  the  artist  in  giving  Phrygia  a  place  with  the  first  group  is  due, 
no  doubt,  not  only  to  the  fact  that  she  is  the  slave-woman  and  attendant 
of  Bacchis,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  she  is  naturally  one  of  the  group 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


81 


that  is  about  to  leave  the  stage.  Bacchis  and  Phrygia  are  represented 
by  the  first  two  figures  on  the  left,  but  there  is  little  to  distinguish  be- 
tween them.  The  gestures  seem  more  appropriate  if  the  first  figure  is 
that  of  Bacchis.  Clinia  is  third  in  order.  The  two  slaves  are  shown 
together,  but  they  are  in  the  reverse  of  the  usual  order,  Syrus  being  last 
on  the  right. 

Copyists  found  the  identification  of  the  characters  in  this  scene  very 
difficult.  In  O,  P,  however,  if  the  two  female  figures  are  correctly 
distinguished  above,  the  names  are  rightly  assigned.  In  F,  not  only 
the  names  of  Bacchis  and  Phrygia,  but  also  those  of  the  two  slaves  are 
interchanged ;  while  the  figure  of  Clinia  is  not  named  at  all.  In  C  the 
third  and  fifth  names  are  written  over  an  erasure  by  the  usual  corrector. 
That  they  have  been  interchanged  admits  of  no  doubt.  Above  the 
fourth  figure  the  name  and  numeral  dromo  ii  are  found,  and  show  that 
the  name  of  Syrus,  the  other  slave,  was  at  first  assigned  to  the  third 
figure.  It  is  all  but  certain,  therefore,  that  the  normal  order  of  names 
was  written  by  the  copyist.  This  assignment  was  incorrect,  except  for 
the  first  figure.  The  name  of  Clinia  was  given  to  a  female  character, 
and  in  all  probability  the  name  of  Phrygia  was  given  to  the  figure  of 
Davus.  The  corrector,  noting  part  of  the  error,  attempted  to  remedy 
it  by  interchanging  the  third  and  fifth  names,  each  with  the  role  appro- 
priate to  it.  The  result  is  that  the  figures  of  the  slaves  are  correcdy 
named,  but  Clinia  is  given  the  name  of  the  slave-girl.  The  corrector 
did  not  notice,  apparently,  the  incongruity  either  in  this  assignment  or 
in  that  of  the  name  of  Clinia  by  the  first  hand  to  the  second  female 
figure.  The  errors  of  both  the  copyist  and  the  corrector  in  this  scene 
show  how  little  weight  should  be  given  to  the  assignment  of  names  in 
this  manuscript. 

Haut.  4,  7  (v.  829).  The  pictures  illustrate  the  third  verse  of  the 
scene.  Chremes,  the  first  speaker,  is  the  first  figure  on  the  left.  The 
other  two  characters  are  in  an  unusual  collocation,  Clitipho  being 
the  second,  Syrus  the  third  figure.  Clitipho  seems  to  be  hesitating 
to  take  the  money  offered  by  Chremes,  but  Syrus  has  his  hand  on  the 
young  man's  shoulder  and  urges  him  on.  The  dialogue  shows  that 
Syrus  was  in  such  a  position  that  he  could  speak  to  Clitipho  without 
Chremes'  knowledge.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  he  is  shown  behind 
Clitipho,  instead  of  between  the  other  two  characters. 


/     / 


82 


John  Calvin  Watson 


In  C,  F,  O  the  names  are  correctly  assigned  to  the  figures,  but  in  C 
the  last  two  names  are  due  to  a  correction  and  stand  over  an  erasure. 
Though  there  is  no  direct  evidence,  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  names 
assigned  to  the  last  two  figures  by  the  copyist  have  been  interchanged.* 
If  this  supposition  is  true,  the  names  were  written  at  first  in  the  normal 
order.  In  P  no  names  were  written  by  the  usual  hand,  but  they  have 
been  inserted  by  some  one  else  and  are  in  the  usual  order.  They  are 
inappropriate  to  the  last  two  figures,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  any  assignment 
of  names  was  attempted. 

Hant  4,  8  (v.  842).  The  only  evidence  upon  which  any  identifica- 
tion of  the  two  figures  can  be  made  is  the  nature  of  the  gestures.  That 
of  the  first  seems  to  be  one  of  appeal,  of  the  second,  either  protest  or 
admonition.  I  am  inclined  to  prefer  the  latter  interpretation,  and  to 
refer  the  action  to  v.  20  f.,  where  Chremes  warns  Menedemus  against 
being  too  complaisant  toward  his  son.  If  this  interpretation  of  the 
gestures  is  correct,  Menedemus  is  first  on  the  left,  and  the  two  senes 
are  in  the  usual  order.  The  names  are  assigned  to  the  figures  in  this 
order  in  the  manuscripts. 

Haut  5,  I  (v.  874).  The  illustrated  mss.  do  not  agree  in  the  divi- 
sion of  scenes  at  this  place  and  before  v.  954.  F,  O,  P  have  four 
figures  in  the  first  of  these  two  scenes,^  but  have  no  miniatures  for  the 
second.  C  has  a  picture  for  each  scene,  the  first  with  two  figures, 
the  second  with  four.  Since  there  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that 
this  MS.  represents  the  true  tradition,"  the  miniatures  in  F,  O,  P  will  be 
disregarded  in  discussing  this  place.  In  C  the  same  two  characters 
are  presented  as  in  the  scene  last  under  discussion,  and  the  gestures 
are  again  about  the  only  means  of  identifying  them.  The  evidence  is 
far  from  clear,  however,  and  does  not  seem  to  warrant  any  conclusion. 
I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  more  violent  gesture  of  the  second 
figure  points  to  the  deep  feeling  of  Chremes,  as  expressed  in  vv.  42-75. 
It  seems  best,  however,  not  to  hazard  any  identification  of  the  charac- 
ters in  this  picture.     If  the  second  figure  could  be  shown  to  be  that  of 


*  Schlee,  op.  cit.^  p.  7,  assigns  the  names  in  C  to  a  later  hand,  but  this  is  an  error. 
Two  of  the  three  names  written  by  the  copyist  have  been  changed. 

*  Schlee,  op.  cit.^  p.  7,  wrongly  states  that  F,  P  have  but  two  figures  at  this  place. 
^  Cf.  p.  141. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  83 

Chremes,  the  order  of  the  two  figures  would  be  normal.  The  names 
m  C  are  assigned  in  this  order,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  names  of 
these  two  characters  in  F,  O,  P,  in  which  the  pictures  at  this  place 
have  probably  suffered  little  change,  except  the  addition  of  two  more 
figures. 

Haut.  5,  2  (v.  954).  The  picture  at  this  place  deserves  special 
mention,  both  because  it  is  extant  only  in  C,  and  because  it  affords  an 
almost  certain  example  of  two  stages  of  a  scene  illustrated  in  a  single 
picture.  The  characters,  in  the  usual  order,  are  shown  in  two  groups. 
On  the  left,  Clitipho  and  Menedemus  are  conversing  as  they  do  only  in 
the  first  seven  verses  of  the  scene.  On  the  right,  Chremes  and  Syrus 
are  engaged  in  conversation.  Since  they  nowhere  address  each  other 
except  in  vv.  20-25,  and  since  the  action  portrayed  is  manifestly 
appropriate  to  this  passage,  this  part  of  the  picture  cannot  present  the 
action  at  the  same  point  of  time  as  the  first  part.  The  artist  was  led  to 
paint  the  picture  in  this  way,  doubtless  because  Menedemus  does  not 
speak  after  the  seventh  verse,  nor  Syrus  before  the  seventeenth  verse  of 
the  scene. 

Haut,  5,  5  (v.  1045).  The  miniatures  illustrate  the  first  half  of  the 
scene,  where  Chremes  is  the  object  of  the  arguments  and  entreaties  of 
the  other  three  characters.  The  gestures  and  attitudes  show  with 
certainty  that  the  two  senes  on  the  left  are  painted  in  the  usual  order. 
The  two  characters  on  the  right  are  Clitipho  and  his  mother,  Sostrata. 
Though  they  play  roles  so  dissimilar,  the  figures  representing  them  have 
a  striking  similarity.  The  third  figure  seems  to  be  that  of  Sostrata,  so 
that  Clitipho  is  last  on  the  right.  This  identification  rests  entirely  upon 
differences  in  the  dress  of  the  two  figures.  The  dress  of  the  third  is 
somewhat  longer  than  that  of  the  others,  and  the  right  fore-arm  is  not 
covered,  but  bare,  both  of  which  are  frequent  signs  of  female  characters 
m  the  miniatures.  If  this  identification  is  correct,  the  figures  are 
painted  in  the  usual  order,  and  the  assignment  of  names  in  the  mss.  is 
correct. 

Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454).  The  artist  chose  for  the  picture  the  dramatic 
moment  when  Chaerea,  disguised  as  the  eunuch,  is  presented  by 
Parmeno  to  Bacchis  (v.  19  ff.).  In  this  scene,  more  almost  than  in 
any  other,  he  was  forced  to  disregard  the  order  in  which  characters 
participate  in  the  dialogue.      The  normal  order  of  the  five  speaking 


w 


John  Calvin  Watson 


characters  would  have  been  as  follows:  Thais,  Thraso,  Parmeno, 
Gnatho,  Pythias.  The  picture  would  not  have  been  appropriate  if 
Paraieno,  in  his  moment  of  triumph  over  Thraso  and  Gnatho,  had  been 
shown  between  these  characters.  The  presentation  scene  demanded 
room  for  Parmeno  and  his  presents,  and  that  neither  Thraso  nor  Gnatho 
should  be  in  a  position  to  intervene.  The  artist  solved  the  problem  by 
painting  Gnatho  first  on  the  left,  then  Thraso  next  to  Thais,  who  is 
in  the  third  position.  Chaerea  naturally  appears  next,  followed  by 
Parmeno,  who  is  leading  the  second  mute  character,  the  Ethiopian 
slave-girl.  The  only  figure  painted  in  the  usual  position  is  that  of 
Pythias  on  the  extreme  right.  The  picture,  with  this  collocation  of  the 
characters,  is  entirely  appropriate  to  illustrate  the  passage  named. 

The  peculiar  order  of  figures  seems  to  have  puzzled  the  copyists,  who 
in  C,  P  assigned  no  names,  this  having  been  done  by  later  hands.  In 
C  the  assignment  is  correct,  except  that  to  Chaerea,  in  his  disguise  as 
eunuch,  the  name  Antipho  was  given,  though  there  is  no  character  of 
this  name  in  the  play.  The  error  was  noticed  still  later  by  some  one, 
who  corrected  it  by  superscribing  the  words  cherea  pro  evnvcho. 
The  same  hand  may  have  erased  the  name  or  the  role  written,  probably 
by  the  first  corrector,  above  the  figure  of  the  Ethiopian  slave.  In  P  the 
same  hand  that  we  have  noticed  before,*  either  the  first  hand  at  a  later 
period,  or  more  probably  a  later  hand  imitating  the  first,  has  written 
abbreviations  of  the  correct  names.  The  order  is  right,  save  that  the 
names  of  Parmeno  and  Chaerea  are  interchanged.  In  O  the  names  of 
the  speaking  characters  only  are  found.  They  are  in  the  correct  order 
of  the  figures.  In  F,  according  to  Umpfenbach,  a  space  is  found  with 
no  picture,  but  with  names  by  a  later  hand.  It  is  certain  that  a  picture 
was  painted  as  usual  at  this  place,  but  it  is  nearly  hidden  by  the  inser- 
tion of  a  piece  of  parchment.  On  the  right  there  is  still  visible  part  of 
a  doorway  with  part  of  the  head  of  a  figure,  very  much  as  Pythias  is 
shown  in  the  rest  of  the  mss.  As  to  any  names  of  characters  at  this 
place  I  have  no  informarion. 

Eun,  3,  5  (v.  549).  Antipho  and  Chaerea,  the  latter  still  in  the 
dress  of  the  eunuch,  are  shown  on  the  stage  in  the  order  of  these 
names.     The  reversal  of  the  usual  arrangement  is  to  be  explained,  not 


'  Cf.  p.  79  on  And.  5,  4  (v.  904). 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


85 


by  the  dialogue,  but  by  the  miniatures  of  the  preceding  scene.  Before 
V.  539  the  same  two  characters  are  pictured  in  the  same  order.  In  that 
scene  Chaerea  is  a  mute  character.  That  he  was  upon  the  stage  during 
part  of  the  scene  is  shown  by  v.  545  ff.  The  interval  of  time  between 
the  two  passages,  selected  by  the  artist  for  illustration,  is  so  brief  that 
he  felt  obliged  to  retain  the  same  order  of  figures  for  the  second  scene. 
In  C  the  usual  order  of  names  was  written  at  first,  but  this  has  been 
corrected  by  a  later  hand.  The  copyist  may  have  merely  reproduced 
the  order  of  names  before  v.  539,  where  they  were  originally  incorrectly 
assigned  in  an  unusual  order,  but  were  later  changed  by  the  same  cor- 
rector. In  P  the  name  of  Antipho  alone,  rightly  assigned  to  the  first 
figure,  is  given  in  each  scene.  The  same  is  true  of  O  before  v.  539. 
In  the  second  scene  the  names  are  wrongly  assigned  in  the  usual  order. 
Since  they  are  written  in  black  ink  in  this  place,  the  error  is  probably 
to  be  ascribed  to  a  corrector.  In  F  alone  the  names  are  rightly  assigned 
in  both  scenes. 

Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643).  There  is  nothing  to  show  cleariy  the  part  of 
the  scene  to  which  the  pictures  refer.  These  are  unusual,  since  the 
two  ancillae  are  not  shown  together,  though  there  is  nothing  in  the 
dialogue  that  seems  opposed  to  the  usual  arrangement.  The  miniatures 
are  peculiar  in  another  respect.  The  attitudes  of  the  figures  show  that 
the  first  is  that  of  Dorias,  while  the  third  represents  Pythias.  The  three 
figures  are  pictured  in  exactiy  the.  reverse  of  the  order  in  which  they 
severally  speak  for  the  first  time  in  the  scene.  In  the  mss.  the  names 
of  the  ancillae  are  wrongly  assigned,  and  are  in  part  in  the  usual  order. 
In  C  this  is  due  to  a  correction,  for  the  normal  order  of  names  was 
written  by  the  copyist,  thus  incorrectiy  assigning  the  names  to  all  the 
figures.  The  corrector  imperfectly  erased  the  last  two  names  with 
the  accompanying  roles,  and  interchanged  them. 

Eun.  4,  4  (v.  668).  The  artist  selected  the  first  verse  of  the  scene 
for  his  illustration.  The  words  of  Phaedria  show  that  the  eunuch, 
Dorus,  is  unwilling  to  come  out  of  the  house  upon  the  stage.  The 
artist  was  unable,  therefore,  to  picture  Phaedria  first  on  the  left.  This 
position  he  gave  to  the  eunuch,  who  is  seen  within  the  door,  while 
Phaedria  is  shown  in  the  second  place,  immediately  outside  the  door. 
The  identification  of  the  two  ancillae  is  uncertain.  Disregarding  these 
two  characters,  F  is  the  only  manuscript  that  has  the  names  of  Donis 


\ 


86 


Jokn  Calvin  Watson 


and  Phaedria  correctly  assigned.*  In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are  in  the 
normal  order,  and,  as  Umpfenbach  noted,  are  wrongly  assigned  to  the 
first  two  figures. 

Eun,  4,  7  (v.  771).  The  Vatican  miniature,  preserved  at  the  head 
of  this  scene,  has  several  times  been  reproduced  First  published  by 
D'Agincourt,  it  has  appeared  successively  among  the  illustrations  of 
the  ancient  theatre,  given  by  Wieseler,^  Baumeister,'  and  Schreiber. 
Partly  for  this  reason,  partly  because  the  identification  of  the  figures  is 
difficult,  this  picture,  more  than  any  other,  has  aroused  discussion. 

The  dialogue  shows  that  eight  characters  are  active  on  the  stage,  all 
of  whom  are  pictured  in  the  miniatures.  The  five  speakers  appear  in 
the  dialogue  in  the  following  order :  Thraso,  Gnatho,  Sanga,  Chremes, 
Thais.  The  first  three  come  with  the  three  mute  characters  to  storm 
the  house  of  Thais,  who  with  Chremes  awaits  the  attack.  Thais  is  not 
the  last  figure  on  the  right,  but  is  between  the  attacking  party  and  the 
young  man.  The  artist's  reason  for  giving  this  unusual  order  is  found 
in  the  closing  verses  of  the  previous  scene,  where  the  timidity  of  Chre- 
mes is  such  as  to  cause  Thais  to  exclaim  that  her  defender  was  himself 
in  need  of  a  protector. 

As  regards  the  identification  of  the  first  six  figures,  opinions  have 
varied  widely.  Wieseler  was  the  first  scholar  in  modem  times  who 
seriously  attempted  the  task.*  To  the  figures  in  the  attacking  party  he 
assigned  names  in  the  following  order  :  Syriscus,  Sanga,  Thraso,  Donax, 
Simalio,  Gnatho.  The  correctness  of  this  assignment  was  challenged  by 
Leo,  who  believed  that  the  first  two  figures  represent  Simalio  and  Syris- 
cus, the  fifth,  Sanga.*  The  difference  in  Wieseler's  and  Leo's  conclusions 
rests  upon  their  disagreement  in  the  identification  of  objects  carried  by 
the  second  and  fifth  figures.  The  first  of  these,  with  uplifted  right  arm, 
has  in  his  hand  an  object  somewhat  oval  in  shape.**  The  fifth  carries 
in  his  left  hand  a  light  club,  apparently,  to  the  end  of  which  some 


*  Instead  of  the  name  of  Dorus  his  role  is  given. 

*  For  the  references  to  Wieseler  (Taf.  X,  5),  and  Schreiber  (Taf.  Ill,  5),  see  p.  73. 
^  Denkmaler  des  Klassischen  AUerthurns^  II,  p.  831.     Abb.  914. 

*  Op,  cit.^  p.  65  ff.     Cocquelines,  however,  had  changed,  in  part  correctly,  the 
assignment  which  he  found  for  five  figures  in  C. 

»  Op.  ciL,  p.  339  f. 

*  Such  is  its  appearance  in  the  reproduction  of  the  Vatican  miniature  by  D'Agin- 
court. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


87 


flexible  material  is  attached.  The  object  in  the  hand  of  the  second 
jigure  was  regarded  by  Wieseler  as  the  pefiiculus,  which  is  carried  by 
Sanga,  as  the  seventh  verse  of  the  scene  shows.  Rejecting  this  inter- 
pretation, Leo  held  that  the  object  carried  by  the  fifth  figure  is  the 
peniculus.  Wieseler  explained  the  object  in  the  hand  of  this  figure  as 
a  lash  or  scourge,  while  Leo  thought  that  the  second  figure  is  represented 
as  hurling  a  stone.  The  dialogue  shows  cleariy  that  Sanga  brings  a  peni- 
culus, but  it  gives  no  evidence  that  either  a  lash  or  a  stone  was  carried 
by  any  of  the  characters.  From  the  language  of  the  fifth  verse,  where 
Syriscus  and  Simalio  are  ordered  to  take  positions  on  the  right  and  left 
wings  respectively,  Wieseler  named  the  first  figure  Syriscus,  the  fifth 
Simalio.  Leo  paid  no  regard  to  this  evidence  and  was  unable  to 
distinguish  between  the  first  two  figures.  Wieseler's  interpretation  was 
adopted  by  Arnold,^  but  Bemhardi  and  Anderson  have  followed  Leo.* 

A  somewhat  different  assignment  of  names  has  recently  been  pro- 
posed by  Dr.  Basore,  who  suggests  that  the  first  figure  is  that  of  Gnatho, 
the  sixth  representing  Syriscus.^  This  assignment,  save  in  the  inter- 
change of  names  between  the  first  and  the  sixth  figure,  agrees  with  that 
of  Wieseler.  For  the  Vatican  miniature,  at  least,  I  do  not  believe  that 
it  is  correct.  The  dress  of  the  sixth  figure  is  that  of  a  citizen,  while 
the  first  in  this  respect  closely  resembles  the  fourth  and  fifth,  of  which 
one,  at  least,  represents  a  mute  character.  It  is  possible  that  copyists 
have  altered  the  appearance  of  the  figures.  As  an  example  of  this,  Leo 
points  to  the  attitude  of  the  sixth  figure  in  this  place,  which  is  painted 
as  if  facing  the  attacking  party,  and  apparently  belongs  on  the  side  of 
Thais  and  Chremes.  Basore  does  not  object  to  this  attitude,  but  shows 
that  in  the  miniatures  for  this  scene  the  attitudes  and  gestures,  and  in 
the  Ambrosianus,  the  order  of  two  characters  have  marked  differences. 
It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  this  is  true  of  the  first  and  sixth 
figures  except  in  the  gestures.  The  atritude  and  dress  of  these  two 
in  the  several  pictures  are  in  close  agreement.     The  attitude  of  the 


*  Cf.  Baumeister,  Denkmaler^  etc.,  II,  p.  831  ff.  Later,  writing  on  Schauspieler 
und  Schauspieler kunst^  III,  p.  1580,  Arnold  refers  to  Leo's  discussion  with  no  further 
expression  of  opinion. 

*  Bernhardi,  Textbuch  zu  Th.  Schreiber* s  Kulturhist.  Bilderatlas,  p.  41;  Ander- 
son, Schreiber's  Atlas  of  Classical  Antiquities,  p.  6. 

3  Studies  in  Honor  of  Basil  L,  Gildersleezcy  p.  283  f . 


\ 


88 


John  Calvin  Watson 


sixth  can  be  explained  by  the  dialogue.     The  dress  of  both  character 
is  strongly  opposed  to  Basore's  assignment. 

These  are  the  conflicting  views  about  the  miniatures  at  this  place. 
The  correct  explanation,  in  my  opinion,  was  given  by  Wieseler.  Leo 
and  Basore  did  not,  indeed,  disregard  the  evidence  of  the  text,  but  they 
failed  to  appreciate  its  value  in  the  interpretation.  The  discussion  of 
the  miniatures  in  this  investigation  shows  with  certainty  that  the  artist 
had  studied  the  several  plays  with  the  greatest  care.  The  text,  there- 
fore, of  the  several  scenes  is  the  basis  upon  which  any  adequate  inter- 
pretation of  the  miniatures  must  rest.  In  view  of  the  artists'  faithfulness 
to  the  text  in  other  scenes,  it  cannot  lightly  be  assumed  that  he  dis- 
regarded it  in  this  place. 

The  correct  interpretation  of  the  miniatures,  in  part  that  of  Wieseler, 
in  part  based  on  other  evidence,  is  believed  to  be  as  follows :  The  pas- 
sage in  w.  11-15  of  the  scene  was  chosen  by  the  artist  for  illustration. 
Syriscus  is  shown  first  on  the  left  because  he  is  ordered  by  Thraso 
in  the  fifth  verse  to  proceed  to  the  right  wing.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  Thraso  this  is  the  position  he  holds.  He  is  shown  with  no 
weapon,  because  none  is  mentioned  in  the  text.  The  second  character 
represents  Sanga  with  the  sponge  ready  to  wipe  away  the  blood  of  the 
wounded.  The  shortness  of  his  dress,  which  in  this  respect  resembles 
that  of  the  captain  himself,  is  explained  by  Thraso's  calling  him  a 
centurion.  The  third  figure  is  Thraso,  who  is,  as  he  himself  states 
in  v.  II,  post  principia.  The  fourth  is  Donax  with  the  crowbar.  His 
position  in  F  is  fifth,  but  this  is  probably  a  change  by  a  copyist.  In  the 
fourth  verse  he  is  ordered  by  Thraso  in  medium  agmen,  and  this  is 
appropriate  to  the  fourth  rather  than  to  the  fifth  place.  The  fifth 
figure  in  C,  O,  P  is  Simalio,  who  is  ordered  by  Thraso  in  the  fifth 
verse  to  take  his  position  on  the  left  wing.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  Thraso,  this  is  his  position.  In  representing  him  as  a  lorarius  with  a 
lash,  the  artist  drew  upon  his  imagination.  Any  explanation  of  the 
object  carried  by  him  as  a  penicuius  is  open  to  several  objections.  The 
artist  would  have  been  stupid  indeed,  if  he  had  painted  at  the  head  of 
the  little  band  a  character  armed  with  a  sponge  or  even  a  whisk.^ 

'  Leo  does  not  give  a  German  equivalent  for  the  noun  penicuius.  Those  who 
follow  him  in  believing  that  the  penicuius  is  carried  by  the  fifth  figure,  explain  this 
as  a  Borsiwisch  (Bemhardi),  or  whisk  (Anderson  and  Basore). 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


89 


Though  the  object  in  question  differs  somewhat  in  appearance  in  the 
miniatures,  it  seems  rather  unsuited  to  the  purpose  for  which  Sanga 
brings   the  penicuius.      Lastly,  even   if   the   object   does  resemble  a 
whisk,  it  is  not  clear   that  a  whisk  is  appropriate   for  wiping  blood 
away   from   a   wound.     Terence   may   have   used   the   word    in    this 
meaning  to  heighten  the  comic  effect,  but  the  artist  was  not  obliged 
to  interpret  it  so.     For  these  reasons  I  hold   that  the  fifth  figure  is 
Simalio,  whom  the  artist  was  pleased  to  regard  as  Thraso's  lorarius, 
Gnatho  is  the  sixth  of  the  attacking  party.     His  position  is  explained 
by  V.  II,  where  some  one  who  is  not  named  is  directed  by  Thraso  to 
array  part  of   the  little  army.      The  artist  thought  that  the   person 
addressed  was  Gnatho,  and  he  was  probably  right.     In  the  mss.  the 
speaker  after  Thraso  is  Gnatho,  and  in  the  Bembinus  the  same  character 
precedes  Thraso  in  the  tenth  verse.     The  rest  of  the  mss.  give  the  nota 
of  Sanga  in  this  verse.^     Whatever  the  correct  distribution  of  the  dia- 
logue may  be,  it  seems  rather  unnatural  to  suppose  that  Thraso  orders 
Sanga  with  the  penicuius  to  command  the  left  wing.     These  words  are 
more  probably  addressed  to  Gnatho  and  were  so  understood  by  the 
artist.     The  attitude  of  Gnatho,  if  this  assignment  is  correct,  is  perfectly 
natural.     He  is  turned  facing  Donax  and  Simalio  whom  he  has  been 
directed  to  command.     The  fact  that  in  P  he  seizes,  with  his  right  hand, 
the  object  carried  by  Simalio  is  doubtless  due  to  a  copyist.     For  such 
an  action  no  reasonable  ground  can  be  given.     In  C  his  hand  is  raised 
in  a  gesture  of  command,  which  is  in  every  respect  appropriate  to  his 
office.     His  proximity  to  Thais  and  Chremes  in  C,  O,  P  is  due  to  a 
change  by  a  copyist.     In  F  a  door  is  shown  between  Gnatho  and  the 
last  two  figures,  and  they  are  not  in  close  proximity,  for  Thais  and 
Chremes  are  shown,  not  on  the  stage  at  all,  but  in  the  house.^    The 
door  was  omitted  by  a  copyist  probably  in  order  to  reduce  the  width  of 
the  picture.     If  this  is  true,  Leo's  objection  to  the  attitude  of  Gnatho 
has  no  basis  of  fact.     It  is  the  strongest  evidence  that  the  copyist,  in 
spite  of  other  changes,  kept  the  attitude  of  Gnatho  true  to  the  original. 
The  copyists  were  subjected  to  the  same  doubts  and  difficulties  as 
modem  scholars  in  assigning  names  to  the  figures.     In  all  the  mss.  the 


*  In  F,  however,  the  nota  SA  is  written  over  an  erasure  by  a  corrector, 
assignment  in  this  ms.  was  probably  to  Gnatho. 


The 


Cf.  Basore,  op.  cit.j  p.  284. 


90 


John  Calvin  Watson 


names  were  written  by  the  usual  hands,  and  have  not  been  subject  to 
correction  in  order.  In  all  of  them  the  names  are  correctly  assigned 
to  the  figures  of  Thais  and  Chremes.  In  C  none  of  the  rest  of  the 
figures  are  rightly  named,  and  in  F,  which  has  the  positions  of  Donax 
and  Simalio  interchanged,  these  figures  alone  have  the  correct  names. 
In  both  MSS.  the  names  of  Thraso  and  Gnatho,  the  first  two  speakers  in 
the  scene,  are  given  to  the  first  two  figures.  In  F  the  name  of  Sanga, 
the  third  to  speak,  is  intended  for  the  third  figure,  though  it  is  not 
written  in  the  space  above  this  figure.  In  C  this  name  is  given  to 
Gnatho  in  sixth  place.  In  both  mss.,  therefore,  the  first  three  names  of 
speakers  are  in  the  usual  order.  In  €  the  names  of  the  mute  charac> 
ters,  Donax,  Simalio,  and  Syriscus,  follow  in  succession  in  the  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  places,  and  are  designed  for  the  figures  denoted  by 
these  numbers,  though  the  exigencies  of  space  prevented  the  copyist 
from  keeping  the  names  in  proximity  to  the  figures.  In  F,  Gnatho  is 
given  the  name  of  Syriscus. 

In  O,  P,  as  frequently  occurs,  the  assignment  is  more  carefully  made. 
In  both  MSS.  the  names  are  in  the  precise  order  suggested  by  Basore  for 
the  order  of  figures.  If  the  interpretation  of  the  miniatures  given  above 
is  correct,  this  assignment  is  right  except  for  the  interchange  between 
the  first  and  sixth  figures. 

Eun,  5,  8  (v.  103 1 ).  The  pictures  seem  best  suited  to  illustrate 
some  point  early  in  the  scene.  Chaerea  and  Parmeno  are  shown  in 
the  usual  order  on  the  left,  the  former  in  exultation  over  his  good  for- 
tune. Thraso  is  pictured  in  the  third  figure,  Gnatho  in  the  fourth. 
Measured  by  the  distribution  of  the  dialogue  in  the  Bembinus  and  the 
most  of  the  later  mss.,  these  characters  are  in  the  reverse  of  the  usual 
order.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  that  suggests  such  an  arrangement, 
nor  can  it  be  explained  by  the  order  in  the  previous  scene,  for  there 
Gnatho  is  first  on  the  left.  The  explanation  is  found,  as  Umpfenbach 
saw  to  be  true  of  the  order  of  names  in  the  Bembine  heading  at  this 
place,  in  a  different  assignment  of  the  dialogue  in  the  seventh  verse  of 
the  scene,  the  first  in  which  either  Gnatho  or  Thraso  speaks.  The  Vati- 
canus  (C)  has  the  nota  of  Thraso  written  by  the  regular  hand.^     The 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


91 


'  Since  Umpfenbach  says  nothing  about  C  in  this  place,  he  implies  that  the  nota 
of  Gnatho  is  given,  but  he  is  in  error. 


same  is  true  of  the  -Parisinus  (P),  but  above  the  nota  of  Thraso  a  later 
hand  has  superscribed  the  nota  of  Gnatho.  The  Ambrosianus  (F)  has 
the  nota  of  Gnatho,  but  it  is  written  over  an  erasure.  The  archetype  of 
the  illustrated  mss.  made  Thraso  the  first  of  these  two  characters  to 
speak.  If  the  collocation  of  figures  could  be  accounted  for  in  any 
other  way,  this  variation  would  have  little  weight.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  Thraso  is  shown  third  in  the  miniatures  because  the  artist 
found  that  in  his  manuscript  Thraso  was  the  third  speaker.  The  names 
are  correctly  assigned  in  the  manuscripts. 

Eun,  5,  9  (v.  1049).     The   miniatures   are   designed   to  show   the 
stage  action  at  some  point  after  v.  20  (v.  1068  of  the  play).     Gnatho 
is  pictured  between  Thraso  and    the  young  men,  and  he  is  plainly 
addressing    the   latter   with    respect  to  Thraso.     His  position  before 
Thraso,  contrary  to  the  order  in  which  they  speak  in   this  scene,  is 
explained  by  v.  20,  where,  entreated  by  the  soldier  to  intercede  in  his 
behalf,  he  bids  the  latter  withdraw  a  little  way.    Any  distinction  between 
the  figures  of  the  young  men  on  the  left  is  difficult,  but  the  attitude  of 
the  first  figure,  which  is  half  turned  away  from  the  rest  of  the  party, 
suggests   Phaedria,  for  he  does  not  readily  make  any  concessions  to 
Thraso.      Furthermore,  it  is  Chaerea,  rather  than  Phaedria,  who  not 
only  is  willing  to  hear  Gnatho's  plea,  but  also  assists  him  in  the  negotia- 
tions.    The  second  position,  therefore,  seems  best  suited  to  Chaerea. 
If  this  explanation  of  the  attitude  and  position  of  the  two  young  men  is 
correct,  they  are  shown  in  the  usual  order.     In  the  mss.  the  names  are 
correctly  associated  with  the  figures,  but  the  last  two  in  C  are  due  to 
the  usual  corrector.     Since  these  names  are  written  over  an  erasure,  it 
is  highly  probable  that  their  position  has  been  interchanged.     If  such  is 
the  case,  the  copyist  of  C  wrote  the  names  in  the  normal  order. 

Phorm,  I,  4  (v.  179).  The  miniatures  refer  most  probably  to  v.  20 
of  the  scene,  where  Geta  reports  that  he  has  just  seen  Antipho's  father 
at  the  harbor.  Except  in  their  gestures  there  is  little  difference  in 
the  appearance  of  the  two  young  men.  The  gesture  of  the  first  is 
rather  one  of  command,  and  is  suited  to  Antipho's  order  in  the  verse 
named.  Moreover,  Antipho,  more  deeply  than  Phaedria,  is  concerned 
with  the  news  brought  by  Geta,  and  more  appropriately  would  have  the 
position  next  to  the  slave.  Antipho,  then,  is  probably  represented  by 
the  second  of  the  three  figures,  Phaedria  by  the  last.     This  is  the  order 


2^2 


John  Calvin  Watson 


.  f 


1 

I 

! 

■ 

1 


in  which  they  speak  for  the  first  time  in  the  scene,  and  in  which  the 
names  are  assigned  in  the  mss. 

Morm,  2,  I  (v.  231).  The  pictures  are  intended  to  illustrate  v.  56  ff. 
of  the  scene,  where  Demipho  for  the  first  time  addresses  Geta.  If  the 
usual  order  of  figures  had  been  given,  Geta  would  be  shown  between 
Demipho  and  Phaedria.  His  position  behind  Phaedria  is  easily  ex- 
plained by  the  text.  At  the  close  of  the  previous  scene,  Geta  directs 
Phaedria  to  accost  Demipho,  while  he  himself  remains  in  ambush  ready 
to  go  to  his  aid.  Until  the  very  verse  in  which  he  addresses  Demipho, 
Geta  is  in  such  a  position  that  he  can  speak  to  Phaedria,  or  utter  com- 
ments aside,  without  attracting  Demipho's  attention.  In  the  mss.  the 
assignment  of  names  is  correct,  but  in  C  this  is  in  part  due  to  the  usual 
corrector.  Since  the  last  two  names  are  written  over  an  erasure,  it  is 
nearly  certain  that  the  normal  order  of  names  was  written  by  the  copyist. 

Pkorm,  2,  3  (V.  348).  The  passage  selected  for  illustration  depends 
upon  the  identification  of  the  first  and  third  figures.  These  have  always 
been  believed  to  represent  respectively  Demipho  and  Phormio,  but  that 
this  view  is  correct  I  do  not  believe.  From  the  appearance  of  the  two 
figures  an  interchange  of  names  is  at  least  permissible.  The  evidence 
of  the  text,  and  the  practice  of  the  artist  elsewhere,  makes  it  almost 
necessary. 

The  pictures  show  on  the  left  the  three  speakere,  and  on  the  right 
the  three  a^wa/r'  required  by  the  text.     The  appearance  of  the  first 
figure  may  give  some  reason  for  the  belief  that  this  is  Demipho.     If 
this  identification  could  be  proved,  it  would  be  necessarv  to  regard  the 
third  as  intended  to  represent  Phormio.     In  C,  however,  there  is  a 
striking  resemblance  between  the  third  and  the  fifth  figure,  the  latter 
picturing  the  aihocatus,  Cratinus.     In  the  rest  of  the  mss.  the  attitudes 
and  gestures  of  these  two  figures  are  veiy  similar,  but  in  other  respects 
the  likeness  is  not  so  close.     Such  a  resemblance  between  Demipho 
and  Cratinus  would  not  be  unnatural,  for  the  latter,  to  judge  from  the 
prominence  given  him  in  the  following  scene,  was  probably  also  a 
senex.     Between  Phormio  and  Cratinus,  however,  such  a  resemblance 
seems  unnatural,  and  it  is  very  improbable  that  any  likeness  between 
these  two  characters  was  designed  by  the  artist.     If  this  view  is  correct, 
one  must  doubt  either  the  integrity  of  the  miniatures  or  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  third  figure  as  Phormio.     Another  ground  for  rejecting  the 


I 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


93 


accepted  view  is  that  the  collocation  of  figures  which  it  requires  is 

inconsistent  with  the  text.     Wieseler,  believing  the  first  to  represent 

Demipho,  was  unable  to  explain  his   separation  from  his   advocati> 

Twice  in  the  opening  of  the  scene  he  bids  them  follow  him  and  support 

him  in  the  encounter  with  Phormio.     If  Demipho  is  the  first  on  the 

left,  not  only  are  two  characters  between  him  and  his  advocati,  but 

the  latter  actually  seem  to  be  supporting  his  adversary.     That  the  artist 

was  capable  of  such  a  blunder  is  abundantly  disproved  by  the  rest  of  his 

work.     A  third  objection  to  the  usual  identification  of  figures  in  this 

place  is  the  impossibility  of  finding  a  passage  to  which  the  miniatures 

refer.    Presumably  it  would  be  near  the  end  of  the  scene,^  for  it  is  here 

alone  that  Phormio  pretends  a  depth  of  feeling,  such  as  the  gesture  of 

the  third  figure  indicates.     Moreover,  it  is  Demipho,  not  Phormio,  who 

is  the  excited  and  indignant  character  in  this  scene.    The  almost  passive 

attitude  of  the  first  figure  is  ill  suited  to  suggest  any  depth  of  feeling. 

The  position  of  Geta  also  is  important.     He  is  shown  addressing,  or 

trying  to  address,  the  third  character.     If  this  is  Phormio,  Demipho 

could  not  have  failed  to  observe  this  action.     But  Geta  at  no  place 

permits  Demipho  to  see  or  overhear  him   addressing  Phormio.      If 

Demipho  is  represented  by  the  third  figure,  the  position  of  Geta  is 

appropriate  to  v.  28  ff.  of  the  scene.     Here  he  attempts  to  set  forth  to 

his  master  the  insulting  language  of  Phormio.     As  must  have  happened 

in  an  actual  performance,  he  is  in  a  position  to  withdraw  to  the  rear  of 

Phormio  as  the  quarrel  continues.     That  he  does  this  is  certain,  since, 

without  the  knowledge  of  Demipho,  he  several  times  addresses  Phormio.* 

For  the  reasons  given  I  reject  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the 

miniatures  at  this  place.     The  true  explanation  I  conceive  to  be  as 

follows :  The  artist,  as  usual,  selected  the  most  dramatic  moment  of  the 

scene,  when  in  v.  31  ff.  Demipho  first  assails  Phormio.     The  parasite  is 

the  first  character  on  the  left,  and  is  shown  awaiting  the  onset.     Geta 

is  deceitfully  trying  to  catch  his  master's  attention,  that  he  may  tell  his 

story  of  Phormio's  impudence.     Demipho  is  the  third  figure.     In  high 

feeling,  and  with  a  gesture  appropriate  to  him,  he  is  addressing  Phormio. 

His  advocati  follow  him  as  they  have  been  directed  to  do,  and  the 


'   Op.  cit.y  p.  69. 

■  Cf.  Wieseler,  p.  69. 


'  Cf.  w.  42,  82,  93. 


94 


John  Calvin  Watson 


nearest  seems  about  to  lay  his  hand  upon  Demipho's  shoulder  in  token 
of  his  support. 

The  speaking  characters  are  not  shown  in  the  usual  collocation, 
because  the  nature  of  the  scene  does  not  permit  it.  It  was  impossible 
for  the  artist  to  present  a  true  picture  if  he  separated  Demipho  from  his 
advocati,  or  if  he  presented  the  latter  between  Demipho  and  Phormio. 
By  painting  the  figures  of  the  three  speakers  in  exactly  the  opposite  of 
the  usual  order,  he  has  given  a  picture  appropriate  to  the  scene. 

The  identification  of  figures  hitherto  accepted  has  rested  upon  the 
assignment  of  names  in  C,  for  the  picture  with  the  names  has  several 
times  been  reproduced  from  this  manuscript.^     As  there  has  been 
frequent  occasion  to  point  out,  the  assignment  in  C  has  little  authority. 
In  the  rest  of  the  mss.,  and  particularly  O,  P,  the  assignment  has 
greater  authority,  since  it  has  been  made  by  persons  of  sharper  vision 
and  better  knowledge  of  the  text.     In  this  place,  however,  F,  O  agree 
with  C  in  having  the  normal  order  of  names.    The  evidence  of  P  is  not 
clear.    The  names  at  present  are  all  written  over  erasures,  except  the 
first  and  the  last.     The  first  hand  erased  at  least  the  fourth  and  fifth 
names  and  wrote  others  in  their  places.     It  seems  probable,  or  at  least 
not  improbable,  that  the  erasures  of  the  second  and  third  names  were 
also  made  by  the  copyist,  for,  in  addition  to  the  erasures  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth  places,  he  assigned  no  name  to  the  first  figure.     The  changes 
in  the  assignment  and  the  failure  to  write  any  name  for  the  first  figure, 
or,  more  probably,  for  the  first  three  figures,  were  with  little  doubt  due 
to  his  uncertainty  about   their   true   order.*    As  early,  therefore,  as 
the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  the  identificarion  of  the  first  character  as 
Demipho,  the  third  as  Phormio,  seems  to  have  been  questioned.     It 
was  rejected  by  the  person  who  later  supplied  the  first  three  names  in 
dark  ink,  for  these  are  correctly  assigned,  if  the  interpretation  given 
above  is  right.* 

Phorm.  2,  4  (v.  441).     The  artist  selected  for  iUustration  w.  6-9  of 

»  Cf.  Wieseler,  op.  ciL,  Taf.  X.  7;  Schreiber,  op,  cit.,  Taf.  Ill,  7.  It  was  first 
published  by  D'Agincourt. 

■  Cf.  p.  163. 

»  The  manner  in  which  Umpfenbach  gives  the  heading  in  P  seems  to  indicate  that 
the  names  are  arranged  in  two  lines,  but  this  is  an  error.  See  PI.  37,  accompanying 
Mr.  Weston's  article  in  this  volume  of  the  Harvard  Studies. 


Scene-Headings  a^id  Miniatures  in   Terence 


95 


the  scene.  If  the  interpretation  of  the  preceding  picture  is  correct,  the 
five  characters  remaining  after  the  departure  of  Phormio  are  shown  in 
the  same  relative  order,  except  that  the  first  two  of  the  advocaH  have 
exchanged  places.  Geta,  though  the  second  speaker,  is  seen  departing 
on  the  left,  because  he  has  been  directed  by  Demipho  to  see  if  Antipho 
is  at  home.  Demipho  then  appears  in  consultation  with  his  advocaH, 
who  are  speakers  in  this  scene.  The  interchange  of  posirion  between 
Hegio  and  Cratinus,  contrary  to  the  order  in  which  they  speak,  rests 
upon  the  unwillingness  of  Hegio,  in  the  seventh  verse,  to  be  first  to 
give  his  advice.  In  C,  F,  P  the  names  are  correctly  assigned,  but  in  C 
the  first  two  are  written  over  an  erasure  by  the  usual  corrector.  There 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  these  two  names  were  written  in  the  usual 
order  by  the  copyist. 

Phorm,  3,  2  (v.  485).  The  miniatures  refer  most  probably  to  the 
end  of  the  scene,  where  Dorio  makes  his  final  offer  to  sell  the  citharistria 
to  Phaedria,  provided  he  is  the  first  to  get  the  money.  The  attitude 
and  gesture  of  Dorio  are  appropriate  to  this  place.  The  figures  of  the 
young  men  are  not  to  be  distinguished  by  their  appearance,  but  the 
dialogue  requires  that  the  second  be  identified  as  Antipho.  He  is  not 
seen  by  Phaedria  until  in  v.  18  of  the  scene.  It  is  not  until  v.  30  that 
he  appeals  to  the  Icjio  in  Phaedria's  behalf.  Since  the  young  men  are 
shown  not  conversing,  but  facing  Dorio,  the  passage  illustrated  must 
follow  the  verse  named,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  second 
figure  was  intended  to  represent  Antipho.  The  collocation,  therefore, 
is  normal  in  every  way.  Though  the  young  men  are  the  first  and  third 
speakers  in  the  scene,  as  characters  having  the  same  role  they  have 
contiguous  positions  on  the  left.  This  leaves  Dorio  and  Geta  in  correct 
order  on  the  right.     In  the  mss.  the  assignment  of  names  is  correct. 

Phorm.  4,  I  (v.  567).  Since  the  appearance  and  gestures  of  the 
two  series  are  very  similar,  it  seems  impossible  to  identify  them,  or  to 
determine  the  part  of  the  scene  selected  for  illustration.  In  the  mss. 
they  are  named  in  the  usual  order,  in  F  by  a  later  hand. 

Pfiorm,  4,  3  (v.  606).  The  miniatures  illustrate  v.  59  ff.  of  the 
scene,  where  Demipho  discusses  with  Geta  the  amount  necessary  to 
buy  off  Phormio.  The  first  two  characters,  Antipho  and  Geta,  are 
shown  in  the  usual  order,  but  the  two  senes  occupy  each  the  place  which 
the  other  would  normaUy  receive.     The  reason  for  this  change  of  order 


.1 


96 


John  Calvin  Watson 


lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  Demipho  rather  than  Chremes  who  tries  to 
make  the  bargain  with  Geta.  It  may  also  be  due  in  part  to  the 
language  of  v.  600,  for  at  the  time  of  this  verse  Demipho  was  between 
Geta  and  Chremes.  In  C,  O,  P  the  names  are  assigned  correctly. 
The  later  hand  in  F  has  given  the  usual  order  of  names,  and  has  erred, 
therefore,  in  naming  the  figures  of  the  senes, 

Phorm,  4,  5  (v.  713).  The  opening  of  the  scene  seems  to  be 
pictured  in  the  miniatures.  The  second  figure  is  shown  with  the  bag 
of  money,  and  is  thereby  identified  as  Demipho,  the  first  speaker  in 
the  scene.  The  first  figure  must  be  Chremes,  the  third  speaker. 
Demipho  addresses  both  Chremes  and  Geta  and  is  best  placed  between 
them.  Geta  could  not  be  shown  between  the  two  senes,  because  he 
twice  in  the  scene  speaks  aside.  For  these  reasons  the  artist  was 
obliged  to  vary  from  his  usual  rule  in  the  collocation  of  characters. 
The  two  characters  of  the  same  r61e  are  brought  together  in  the  picture 
contrary  to  the  order  of  their  first  participation  in  the  dialogue.  In  F, 
O,  P  the  figures  are  named  correctly,  in  F  by  a  late  hand.  In  C  the 
names  are  in  the  usual  order  and  are  wrong  for  the  first  two  characters. 

Phorm,  5,  3  (v.  784).  In  this  scene  the  miniatures  have  a  distribu- 
tion of  characters  not  only  inexplicable  by  means  of  the  text,  but 
entirely  opposed  to  it.  Since  Chremes  is  shown  on  the  right,  just  as 
he  is  coming  from  the  house  of  Demipho,  the  picture  seems  to  illustrate 
V.  12  f .  of  the  scene  (v.  795  f.  of  the  play).  The  picture  is  unsuited 
to  show  the  action  at  this  place.  Chremes,  at  his  entrance,  does  not  at 
once  see  his  wife,  but  begins  to  converse  with  Demipho.  To  illustrate 
the  verse  named,  therefore,  Demipho  should  be  between  Nausistrata 
and  Chremes,  but  in  the  pictures  Nausistrata  is  between  the  other  two 
characters.  Moreover,  in  v.  22  (v.  805  of  the  play)  Chremes  seems  to 
speak  to  Demipho  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  his  wife  from  hearing 
him.  If  this  is  true,  it  is  obvious  that  whatever  the  collocation  was  in 
V.  12,  at  this  point  Nausistrata  could  not  have  occupied  the  position 
in  which  she  is  pictured.  The  miniatures  are  inappropriate,  therefore, 
to  show  the  arrangement  of  the  characters  on  the  stage.  The  reason 
for  this  will  be  shown  later.^  In  the  mss.  the  names  are  correctly 
assigned,  in  F  by  a  late  hand. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


97 


'  See  p.  151  f. 


Phorm,  5,8  (v.  894).  The  artist,  true  to  his  usual  rule  in  the  selec- 
tion of  a  passage,  has  presented  Demipho  and  Chremes  struggling  with 
Phormio  in  the  attempt  to  drag  him  away  and  prevent  him  from  calling 
Nausistrata  out  of  the  house.  Phormio  is  properly  shown  between  the 
other  two  characters,  whose  separation,  contrary  to  the  usual  arrange- 
ment, is  required.  The  only  ground  upon  which  to  base  an  identifica- 
tion of  the  figures  of  Demipho  and  Chremes  is  the  evident  fact  that 
the  figure  on  the  right  is  trying  not  only  to  drag  Phormio  away,  but 
also,  by  placing  his  hand  over  Phormio's  mouth,  to  prevent  his  crying 
out.  The  activity  of  this  figure,  greater  than  that  of  the  first,  suggests 
Chremes,  whose  interests  are  much  more  at  stake,  and  who  in  v.  93 
sees  the  necessity  of  stopping  Phormio's  mouth.  The  position  of 
Demipho  on  the  left  shows  in  all  probability  that  in  the  manuscript 
used  by  the  artist  as  in  our  mss.  he  was  the  first  speaker  in  the  scene. 
With  regard  to  the  order  in  which  Phormio  and  Chremes  enter  the 
dialogue,  positive  evidence  is  precluded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  picture. 
In  the  artist's  manuscript  the  verse  transmitted  as  the  twelfth  in  all  our 
MSS.  may  either  have  had  this  position,  or  it  may  have  been  the  third, 
the  position  to  which  it  is  restored  by  Fleckeisen.  It  could  scarcely 
have  come  first  of  all,  a  restoration  proposed  by  Bothe. 

Of  the  MSS.  F  and  O  have  lost  this  part  of  the  Phormio.  In  P  the 
names  are  correctly  assigned,  if  the  distinction  made  above  between  the 
figures  of  the  two  senes  is  accepted.^  In  C  the  copyist  wrote  the  names 
of  Demipho  and  Chremes  together  on  the  left,  of  Phormio  on  the  right. 
For  the  last  two  figures  the  assignment  was  wrong.  Some  one,  other 
than  the  usual  corrector,  observed  the  error  and  changed  the  last  two 
names  by  writing  the  correct  names  over  the  incorrect  ones. 

Phorm,  5,  9  (v.  990).  In  the  miniatures  last  under  discussion,  the 
last  four  verses  of  the  scene  are  illustrated.  In  the  present  scene  the 
first  verse  was  chosen  by  the  artist  for  the  picture.  The  brief  interval 
of  time  elapsing  between  the  two  illustrations  suggested  to  the  artist 
the  necessity  of  keeping  Demipho  and  Chremes  in  the  same  relative 
order  in  both.  It  is  very  probable,  therefore,  that  Demipho  is  the  first 
of  the  two  senesy  Chremes  the  second.     Nausistrata  is  first  on  the  left. 


*  Schlee,  op.  cit.^  p.  7,  was  in  error  in  supposing  that  the  order  of  names  in  P  has 
been  changed  by  a  later  hand. 


98 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Phormio  last  on  the  right.  The  order  in  which  the  characters  speak  in 
the  scene  is  in  doubt.  In  the  Bembinus  the  first  verse  is  assigned  to 
Nausistrata,  Phormio  being  the  second  speaker,  followed  in  turn  by 
Chremes  and  Demipho.  If  this  is  the  right  distribution  of  the  parts, 
the  collocation  of  figures  is  very  unusual,  for  Phormio,  though  his  posi- 
tion seems  entirely  natural,  might  with  equal  propriety  have  been  shown 
between  Nausistrata  and  the  other  characters.  The  artist's  reason  for 
showing  him  last  of  all  is  explained  by  the  distribution  of  the  notae  in 
the  later  mss.  In  all  of  these  the  interjection  hem  in  the  first  verse  is 
assigned  to  Chremes,^  so  that  Phormio  is  the  third  to  speak,  and 
Demipho  the  last.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  was  the  order  in 
which  the  characters  entered  the  dialogue  in  the  artist's  manuscript 
According  to  the  practice  elsewhere,  those  of  the  same  role  are  given 
contiguous  positions  in  the  place  which  the  first  of  them  to  speak  would 
naturally  receive,  so  that  Phormio  perforce  is  shown  last  of  all.  In  C, 
P  the  names  are  assigned  correctly,  if  the  identification  of  Demipho 
and  Chremes,  given  above,  is  right. 

Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243).  The  miniatures  are  designed  to  show  the  action 
in  V.  29,  where  Laches  turns  to  Sostrata,  believing  that  she  is  the  cause 
of  Philumena's  unwillingness  to  return  to  Pamphilus.  The  gesture  of 
the  first  figure  is  appropriate  to  the  words  of  Phidippus  immediately 
preceding.  That  this  is  Phidippus  is  shown  also  by  the  door  behind 
him,  for  he  enters  the  stage  from  his  own  house.  The  figures  are 
arranged  in  the  normal  order.  In  C,  O,  P,  the  names  are  correctly 
assigned.  On  the  names  in  F,  written  throughout  this  play  by  a  later 
hand,  I  have  no  information. 

Hec,  3,  4  (v.  415).  It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  figure  of 
Parmeno  does  not  appear   twice   in   the   miniatures  at   this  place.* 


Mn  A  a  noia  appropriate  to  none  of  the  characters  in  this  scene  was  written 
before  the  word  hem  by  a  corrector  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  century.  (On  the  time  of 
this  hand,  Umpfenbach's  corrector  recens^  see  Hauler's  revision  of  Dziatzko's  edition 
of  the  Pkormioy  p.  184  f.,  and  Kauer,  Wiener  Studien^  XX,  1898,  p.  252-276.) 
The  interjection  seems  too  apposite  to  Nausistrata  to  suppose  that  in  A  the  nota  of 
Chremes  before  the  word  in  question,  and  that  of  Nausistrata  following  it,  have  been 
lost  by  accident.  On  the  other  hand,  we  should  expect  an  exclamation  from  Chremes 
at  this  point,  and  the  order  of  figures  in  the  miniatures  shows  that  with  little  doubt 
the  assignment  of  hem  to  Chremes  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  artist's  time. 

"  See  p.  66  f. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


99 


C 


The  miniatures  refer  to  v.  16  ff.,  where  Pamphilus,  the  third  speaker, 
is  trying  to  get  Parmeno,  the  first  speaker,  away  from  Phidippus'  door. 
These  characters,  necessarily  shown  together,  are  painted  on  the  right. 
Of  the  two  slaves  on  the  left,  one  is  Sosia,  the  other,  a  mute  character. 
In  C,  O,  P,  the  regular  order  of  names  is  found,  so  that  the  figure  of 
Pamphilus  is  rightly  named.  The  first  of  the  slaves  is  wrongly  called 
Parmeno,  while  the  true  Parmeno,  on  the  extreme  right,  is  without 
assignment. 

^^^'  3>  5  (v.  451)'  The  pictures  are  probably  designed  to  present 
the  action  during  w.  43-45,  the  last  that  were  spoken  while  Pamphilus 
was  on  the  stage.  The  attitude  of  the  second  figure,  who  is  half  turned 
towards  Pamphilus,  and  the  gesture  suggest  the  words  of  Phidippus  in 
V.  43.  The  sharper  gesture  of  the  first  is  appropriate  to  the  strong 
admonition  of  Laches  in  this  and  the  following  verse.  The  collocation 
is  normal  in  every  way,  and  this  is  the  order  in  which  the  names  are 
assigned  in  C,  O,  P. 

Hec.  4,  4  (v.  623).  The  miniatures  illustrate  v.  46  f.,  where  Laches, 
in  answer  to  Phidippus'  question  about  the  disposition  of  the  child, 
replies  that  it  must  be  restored  to  Pamphilus.  The  second  of  the  two 
senes  on  the  left  is  conversing  with  the  first,  but  he  is  partly  turned  and 
is  pointing  toward  Pamphilus.  The  figures  are  arranged  in  the  usual 
order,  and  the  assignment  in  C,  O,  P  is  correct. 

Hec,  5,  2  (v.  767).  The  first  five  verses  of  the  scene  appear  to  have 
been  chosen  for  the  illustration.  The  nutrix,  who  must  be  supposed  to 
enter  the  house  of  Phidippus  after  the  third  verse,  is  first  on  the  left. 
For  this  reason  it  is  necessary  to  regard  the  second  figure,  the  first  of 
the  senes,  as  designed  to  represent  Phidippus,  though  there  is  little  in 
his  appearance  to  distinguish  him  from  Laches.  The  gesture  of  the 
third  character,  who  is  pointing  to  Bacchis,  is  equally  suitable  to  Phi- 
dippus' question  Haecine  east?  and  Laches'  answer  Haec  est.  Dis- 
regarding the  nutrixy  who  is  a  mute  character,  the  figures  are  in  the 
usual  order,  and  this  is  the  order  of  the  names  in  C,  O,  P. 

Ad,  I,  2  (v.  81).  It  is  equally  difficult  to  determine  the  passage 
selected  by  the  artist,  and  to  identify  the  two  senes.  From  the 
more  violent  gesture  of  the  first,  together  with  some  appearance  of 
anger,  it  is  probable  that  this  figure  represents  Demea.  If  this  is  true, 
the  arrangement  is  the  usual  one.  In  C,  O,  P,  the  names  are  assigned 
in  this  order,  but  in  F  the  order  is  reversed. 


lOO 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Ad,  2,4  (v.  265).  The  artist  chose  w.  7-1 1  for  his  illustration. 
Of  the  two  young  men  shown  on  the  left,  the  first  is  Aeschinus, 
chiding  Ctesipho  for  the  rash  course  he  was  about  to  pursue.  That  the 
first  figure  represents  Aeschinus,  who  has  just  come  upon  the  stage,  is 
shown  also  by  the  door  on  the  extreme  left  of  the  picture.  The  second 
figure,  Ctesipho,  in  a  passive  attitude,  is  listening  to  Aeschinus.  Of  the 
two  on  the  right,  Syrus  has  his  right  hand  on  Ctesipho's  shoulder,  whDe 
with  his  left  he  holds  Sannio  by  the  wrist.  This  conception  and  the 
unusual  order  of  these  two  figures  are  explained  by  the  opening  verses 
of  the  scene.  Since  at  the  entrance  of  Aeschinus  Sannio  sees  that  he 
has  come  without  the  money,  and  has  reason  to  fear  further  violence 
from  him,  it  is  natural  that  he  should  avoid  the  youth  as  far  as  possible, 
or  even  attempt  to  leave  the  stage.  For  this  reason  Sannio,  though  he 
is  the  second  speaker,  is  shown  last  on  the  right.  The  young  men  are 
given  contiguous  positions  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Ctesipho  is  the  third 
speaker  in  the  scene.     The  names  are  correctly  assigned  in  the  mss. 

Ad,  3,  2  (v.  299).  The  miniatures  are  best  referred  to  some  point 
before  v.  22,  where  Sostrata  first  accosts  Geta.  The  slave  is  the  first  on 
the  left,  as  the  first  speaker  in  the  scene.  He  is  shown  in  a  state  of 
great  excitement,  as  is  denoted  by  his  gestures  with  both  arms.  Of  the 
two  women  on  the  right,  the  first  seems  to  be  pointing  to  Geta  while 
addressing  the  other.  The  last  figure,  with  outstretched  arm,  is  advanc- 
ing toward  Geta,  apparently  with  the  purpose  of  addressing  him.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  this  is  Sostrata,  the  figure  in  the  middle  repre- 
senting Canthara.  For  this  unusual  collocation  the  dialogue  gives  no 
explanation,  and  it  must  be  ascribed  to  the  fancy  of  the  artist.  Since 
Canthara  speaks  but  a  few  words  in  the  scene,  the  artist  may  have 
chosen  to  represent  her  between  the  other  two,  that  she  might  seem  to 
be  a  more  active  participant  in  the  action  and  dialogue.  If  this  identi- 
fication is  right,  the  names  in  the  mss.  are  inconectly  assigned  to  the 
last  two  figures. 

Ad.  3,  4  (v.  447).  Since  the  miniatures  show  Geta  appealing  to 
Hegio  in  behalf  of  Sostrata  and  her  daughter,  they  must  be  referred 
to  w.  9-12.  Hegio  does  not  see  Demea  until  v.  15  is  reached.  For 
this  reason  the  two  senes  could  not  be  shown  together  in  the  usual  order. 
By  painting  Hegio  on  the  left,  Demea  on  the  right,  with  Geta  between 
them,  the  artist  has  produced  a  picture  suitable  to  illustrate  the  passage 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  10 1 

named.  Though  the  order  is  unusual,  it  is  that  in  which  the  characters 
speak  for  the  first  time  in  the  scene.  The  names  are  correctly  assigned 
in  the  mss. 

Ad,  4,  2  (v.  540).  The  miniatures  present  the  action  on  the  stage 
as  it  appeared  in  an  actual  performance  at  v.  13  ff.  At  this  point 
Ctesipho  leaves  the  stage.  His  gesture  toward  the  door  on  the  right 
is  accounted  for  by  his  words  before  his  departure.  Syrus,  in  an  atti- 
tude of  dejection,!  is  advancing  to  a  place  where  Demea  can  see  him, 
as  he  does  in  v.  14.  Demea,  as  the  first  speaker,  is  first  on  the  left,  but 
Ctesipho,  the  second  speaker,  is  last  on  the  right.  He  could  not  be 
painted  between  Demea  and  Syrus,  because  he  is  shown  by  his  own 
words  to  be  avoiding  Demea.  The  assignment  of  names  in  the  mss.  is 
correct. 

Ad,  4,  3  (v.  592).  The  miniatures  are  best  regarded  as  illustrating 
V.  7  ff.  of  the  scene.  The  second  of  the  senes,  half  turned  from  the 
first,  is  making  a  gesture,  apparently  of  direction,  toward  his  left.  This 
figure  probably  represents  Hegio  as  he  asks  Micio  to  go  with  him  to  see 
Sostrata.  If  this  identification  is  correct,  the  figures  are  in  the  usual 
order.     This  is  the  manner  in  which  the  names  are  assigned  in  the  mss. 

Ad.  4,  7  (v.  719)-  The  passage  illustrated  is  hard  to  determine,  and 
might  with  equal  probability  be  any  one  of  several  places.  The  order 
of  characters  is  not  in  doubt.  The  proximity  of  the  first  to  a  door  on 
the  left  shows  that  this  is  Micio,  who  enters  from  his  own  house  at  the 
beginning  of  the  scene.  This  evidence  is  confirmed  by  the  more  violent 
gesture  of  the  second,  which  is  appropriate  to  the  anger  of  Demea. 
The  figures,  therefore,  are  arranged  in  the  usual  order.  The  names  are 
correctly  assigned  in  the  mss. 

^^-  5»  3  (v.  787).  The  part  of  the  scene  selected  for  illustration 
and  the  assignment  of  names  to  the  two  senes  are  very  doubtful.  At  the 
same  moment  Micio  comes  out  of  the  house  of  Sostrata,  and  Demea  out 
of  the  house  of  Micio.  Sjnce  we  cannot  be  sure  whose  door  is  shown 
on  the  left  of  the  picture,  this  gives  no  aid  in  identifying  the  figures. 
The  gestures  too  are  difficult  of  interpretation.  The  pictures  could  be 
assigned  to  any  of  several  places  in  the  text  with  varying  "identification 

*  It  might  be  thought  that  Syrus  is  pointing  to  his  lip,  which  he  pretends  in  v.  20 
has  been  injured  by  a  blow  from  Ctesipho,  but  the  hand  lifted  toward  the  face  is 
almost  invariably  a  sign  of  dejection. 


I02 


John  Calvin  Watson 


of  the  figures,  but  the  evidence  is  too  uncertain  to  warrant  any  decision. 
In  the  Mss.  the  names  are  assigned  in  the  usual  order. 

Ad,  5,  7  (v.  899).*  The  pictures  are  intended  to  show  the  stage 
action  at  v.  19  ff.  Demea  has  sent  Synis  away  on  an  errand,  where- 
upon he  is  thanked  by  Geta  for  his  kindness  to  Sostrata  and  her 
daughter.  Geta,  though  the  fourth  speaker,  is  the  third  figure,  while 
Syms,  the  third  speaker,  is  seen  leaving  the  stage  on  the  right.  Aeschi- 
nus  and  Demea  are  in  the  usual  order  on  the  left.  In  C,  O,  P  the 
names  are  correctly  assigned,  but  F  has  the  usual  order,  so  that  the 
figures  of  Geta  and  Syrus  have  their  names  interchanged. 

Ad.  5,  8  (v.  924).  The  verses  to  which  the  miniatures  are  to  be 
referred,  and  the  identification  of  the  first  two  figures  are  very  uncertain. 
If  the  opening  of  the  scene  is  illustrated,  Micio  is  probably  the  first  on 
the  left.  If  the  artist  had  in  mind  v.  10  ff.,  where  Micio  is  urged  to 
marry  Sostrata,  it  would  be  more  fitting  for  him  to  be  between  the  other 
two  characters.  The  evidence  seems  inadequate  to  establish  even  a 
probability.     In  the  mss.  the  names  are  assigned  in  the  usual  order. 

Ad.  5,  9  (v.  958).  The  miniatures  illustrate  w.  25,  26,  the  last  two 
in  which  Syrus  speaks,  after  which  he  probably  leaves  the  stage.  The 
four  figures  are  in  two  groups.  On  the  left  Syrus  and  Demea  are  seen, 
the  latter  felicitating  or  addressing  Syrus  on  his  good  fortune.  On  the 
right  Aeschinus  is  probably  appealing  to  Micio  in  behalf  of  Syrus,  though 
he  may  be  thanking  him  for  his  bounty,  as  he  does  in  v.  26.  The  figures 
are  in  the  usual  order,  except  that  on  the  right,  Micio  and  Aeschinus, 
respectively  the  third  and  fourth  speakers,  have  been  interchanged. 
The  reason  for  this  deviation  is  found  in  the  dialogue.  Micio  is  un- 
willing to  give  freedom,  first  to  Syrus,  then  to  Phrygia,  the  wife  of  Syrus, 
and  finally  to  give  them  something  with  which  to  begin  their  new  life, 
but  he  is  persuaded  by  Demea  and  Aeschinus  to  concede  these  favors 
one  after  another.  In  his  belief  that  Syrus  has  not  merited  such  rewards, 
it  is  natural  that  he  should  be  represented  as  far  as  possible  from  Syrus 
and  Demea. 

In  C,  O  the  names  are  correctly  assigned.  In  F  they  are  in  the  nor- 
mal order,  and  are  wrong  for  the  last  two  figures.     The  copyist  of  P  was 


*  Facsimiles  of  the  Vatican  miniatures  at  this  place  and  before  v.  889  are  given 
by  Silvestre,  PaUog.  Univ.  II,  near  the  end. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


103 


uncertain  about  the  interpretation  of  the  picture,  probably  because  he 
thought  that  the  first  two  figures  might  represent  Micio  formally  giving 
Syrus  his  freedom.^  After  correctly  assigning  the  first  two  names,  he 
omitted  the  last  two. 

Such  is  the  list  of  miniatures  in  which  the  order  of  figures  either  is 
unusual,  or  seems  subject  to  serious  doubt.  In  all  others  the  evidence 
is  reasonably  clear  that  the  collocation  was  determined  entirely  by  the 
order  in  which  the  characters  speak  in  the  several  scenes.  To  give  a 
summary  of  the  53  scenes  which  have  been  considered  in  this  paper, 
twelve  appear  to  have  a  normal  order  of  figures,  seven  are  in  such 
doubt  as  to  make  any  decision  inadvisable,  while  the  rest  certainly 
have  an  unusual  collocation.  These  are  34  in  number,  and  may  be 
further  classified.  In  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  103 1)  the  deviation  is  only  appar- 
ent, and  is  explained  by  a  variation  in  the  distribution  of  the  dialogue. 
In  Phorm.  5,9  (v.  990)  part  of  the  apparent  disorder  is  accounted  for 
in  the  same  way.  The  unusual  arrangement  of  the  rest  of  the  figures  at 
this  place  is  explained  by  the  order  of  the  same  characters  in  the  pre- 
vious scene.  Two  other  miniatures  are  best  accounted  for  wholly  in 
this  way.*  In  three  scenes  where  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  that 
suggests  the  collocation,  the  artist  depended  entirely  on  his  fancy.* 
The  same  is  true  in  part  in  two  other  miniatures,  the  unusual  order  of  the 
rest  of  the  figures  being  evidently  due  to  the  dialogue.*  In  24  scenes 
the  artist  followed  closely  the  evidence  of  the  text.  In  only  one  instance 
is  the  picture  inappropriate  to  illustrate  the  scene,  and  in  this  case  there 
is  reason  to  doubt  its  genuineness.* 


Comparison  of  the  Order  of  Names  with  the  Order  of  Figures 

The  discussion  now  reverts  to  the  scene-headings.  It  was  shown 
above  that  the  unusual  order  of  names  found  in  a  few  of  the  Bem- 
bine  headings  has  never  been  satisfactorily  explained.  The  lists  of  such 
scenes  given  by  Umpfenbach  and  Studemund  are  defective,  chiefly  be- 


>  Cf.  V.  13. 

«  And.  2,  6  (v.  432);   Eun.  3,  5  (v.  549). 

*  And.  3,4  (v.  580);   Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643);   Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299). 

*  And.  3,  I  (v.  459);   Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723).     On  this  place,  see  further  p.  158  f. 

*  Phorm.  5,  3  (v.  784);   cf.  p.  151  f. 


I04 


John  Calvin  Watson 


cause  these  scholars  had  not  accurately  detennined  the  characteristic 
arrangement  of  names.  For  the  later  mss.  no  one,  apparently,  has  ever 
given  any  statistics.  To  supply  this  want,  and  to  facilitate  the  compari- 
son of  the  several  mss.  included  in  this  investigation,  the  table  given  on 
p.  105  has  been  prepared.  Because  of  certain  differences  in  the  illus- 
trated MSS.,  it  has  seemed  best  to  select  one  of  them  for  the  statistics 
about  the  order  of  figures.  I  have  chosen  the  Vaticanus  (C)  because 
of  my  conviction  that  for  the  miniatures,  at  least,  it  has  most  faithfully 
preserved  the  tradition  of  its  family.*  In  both  the  headings  and  the 
miniatures  mute  characters  have  been  disregarded,  since  their  position 
was  not  determined  in  the  same  way  as  that  of  speakers.  The  scenes 
are  classified  according  to  the  number  of  speaking  characters  they  con- 
tain. Under  each  manuscript  the  first  column  gives  the  several  num- 
bers of  scenes  in  which  the  usual  order  of  names,  or  of  figures  in  C,  is 
found,  the  second  column,  the  numbers  of  those  which  have  some 
unusual  order.  Under  C  the  third  column  includes  those  in  which  the 
order  of  figures  is  in  doubt. 

The  total  number  of  scene-headings  with  an  unusual  order  of  names 
varies  between  12  in  A  and  22  in  E,  M.  In  C  an  unusual  order  of 
figures  is  found  in  34  miniatures,  with  seven  in  doubt.  In  the  case  of 
these  seven,  it  must  be  remembered,  the  want  of  evidence  upon  which 
to  base  a  decision  is  the  only  reason  for  considering  them  doubtful. 
Since  in  scenes  having  two  or  three  characters  a  large  majority  of  the 
miniatures  have  the  normal  collocation,  it  is  probable  that  nearly  all, 
possibly  all  of  the  seven  were  intended  by  the  artist  to  be  regular  in 
every  respect.  Even  if  this  is  true,  exceptions  to  the  usual  rule  are 
found  in  the  miniatures  more  frequently  than  in  the  headings.  The 
difference,  however,  is  not  so  great  as  the  several  numbers  seem  to 
indicate.  Of  the  total  number  of  scenes  classified  under  each  manu- 
script in  the  first  table,  the  percentage  that  have  an  unusual  arrange- 
ment of  characters  is  12  in  A,  14  in  L,  17  in  D,  Paris.  10304,  20  in  E, 
M,  21  in  G,  not  less  than  27  or  more  than  33  in  C,  and  43  in  the  later 
portions  of  D.      Between  the  miniatures  and  the  scene-headings  in 


*  Cf.  p.  141.  Since  writing  the  above  I  am  pleased  to  find  that  Mr.  Weston  on 
different  grounds  has  reached  the  same  conclusion.  See  p.  43  of  this  volume  of  the 
Harvard  Studies, 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


105 


< 

< 

u 

o 
w 

o 


u 

injjqnoQ 

w^«  000 

r% 

IBnsnufi 

[Bnsa 

Tf   It  »i^  0     0 

00 

» 

IBnsnufi 

14 

IBUS/l 

"^vo  0\  0  0 

8, 

m 

jBnsnufi 

0  00  00   N    0 

00 

IBnsn 

N   »^vO    i-i    0 

10  W 

VO 
00 

:§ 

jBnsnufi 

vO   ON"^  N   0 

IBnsn 

ror^oo  m  0 

*•* 

a 

fBnsnufi 

•-<  VO  t^  N   0 

IBnsn 

ON  N  00    0    0 
»0  fO 

8^ 

0 

IBnsnufi 

cnt^vo  N  0 

00 

14 

IBnsn 

N   ts.00    i-i    0 

00 

01 

[Bnsnun 

0   *^   N   0   0 

fO 

IBnsn 

mi-i  000 

""l- 

Q 

IBHsnun 

HH  00  t^  fn  0 

On 

IBnsn 

vo  o\  t^  0  0 

ON 

< 

IBnsnun 

0     Tf  IT)  M    M 

IBnsn 

ON 

00 

Two  characters   .... 
Three       "          .... 
Four         "          .... 
Five          "          .... 
Six            "          .... 

It 

1 

en 

a 

CO 

iS 


Pi 

•c 

u 

a 


03     en 
O 

c  ^ 

tn    »E3 

O     en 
■*-> 

a 


B 

G 

<U 

X! 

O 
en 


(1> 


G 
O 


en 


I 

a 

en 


^3 

-g  o 

0)  en 

C  u 

•"  c3 

en  7? 

o;  VM 

B  S 

a  S 

^  G 

^  "^ 

.0  ■*-» 

^  4a* 


o 

O 

o 

(—1 

en 


2     P 


n3 


u 


run   .     •   On  N 
N   1-1     •     • 


O 

o 


N    N    ONN   fON 


s 

m  On  N  00  VO   N 

M 

a 

lO  N  w^  0   N  VO 

HI     M                          M 
>4 

0 

VO   >-  1-1  ir>  ^  fo 
00  i-«  f"              to 

l^  «   0   0  0  0 

Q 

"-«   "*  CO  0   '♦OO 

14 

< 

14  vO   0   0  t^vO 

o 

>  a 


I  «  ^ 
I-    U   en 

o;g  o 


s 
o 


c  > 

CA     CA 

C    C 

ej   u 

C/3C/2 


V     h<     1)    QJ, 
f     <l>    ■fcJ     w 

4)    jn   g  ** 


t/3 

c 


0)    4>    ?^    C« 


io6 


John  Calvin  Watson 


E,  G,  M  the  differences  are  little  greater  than  those  between  the  scene- 
headings  in  the  several  mss.  of  the  h  family. 

The  statistics  given  above  demonstrate  that  in  the  great  majority  of 
scenes  the  headings  and  the  miniatures  have  the  characters  arranged 
according  to  the  same  principle.  In  scenes  ako  where  the  arrangement 
of  characters  is  unusual,  evidence  of  the  same  principle  is  found,  for  in 
nearly  all  of  these  the  deviation  from  the  usual  order  is  confined  to  a 
part  of  the  names  or  figures.  The  first  speaker  is  usually  the  first  of 
the  speaking  characters  to  be  named  or  painted  on  the  left.  To  this 
rule  there  is  one  exception  in  A,  two  in  L,  three  in  D,  four  in  Paris. 
10304,  five  in  E,  ten  in  G,  twelve  in  M,  and  only  twelve  certain  excep- 
tions in  C*  It  is  further  true  that  the  unusual  arrangement  is  produced 
in  most  instances  by  the  position  given  a  single  name  or  figure,  or  by 
an  exchange  of  position  between  two  names  or  figures.  By  changing 
the  position  of  one  name,  or  by  interchanging  two  names,  most  headings 
of  four  or  more  characters  can  be  reduced  to  the  normal  order.  The 
exceptions  are  one  each  in  A,  D,  L,  Paris.  10304,  two  in  E,  and  three 
each  in  G,  M.  If  the  same  test  is  applied  to  the  miniatures,  the  figures 
in  aU  but  five  can  be  reduced  to  the  normal  collocation.'*  In  scenes  of 
three  characters  the  reverse  of  the  usual  order  is  very  rare.  There  is 
only  one  instance  each  in  C,  D,  L,  and  two  in  G.* 

In  both  the  headings  and  the  miniatures  the  tendency  toward  an 
unusual  order  increases  rapidly  with  every  addition  to  the  number  of 

>  And.  2,  6  (v.  432),  C,  E.  M;  3,  i  (v.  459),  C,  M;  5,  i  (v.  820),  D,  E,  G, 
L,  M;  5,  4  (v.  904),  C,  E,  G,  M;  Haul.  2,  2  (v.  230),  M;  4,  i  (v.  614),  G,  M; 
Eun,  3,  2  (v.  454),  C,  G;  3.  5  (v.  549),  C,  M;  4,  3  (v.  643),  C,  Paris.  10304; 
4,  4(v.668),C,M;  4»7(v-770.C;  5»  4.  21  (v.  943),  M;  /%<?rw.  i,  3  (v.  153), 
E,  M;    I,  4  (v.  179),  G;    2,  1  (v.  231),  G;    2,  3  (v.  348),  C;    2,  4  (v.  441),  C; 

4.  5  (v-  713)*  C;  5,  3,  12  (v.  795),  A,  D,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304;  Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243), 
D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304;  3,  4  (v.  415),  C;  Ad,  3,  2  (v.  299),  Paris.  10304;  4,  i 
(v.  517),  E;    5,  I  (v.  763),  G;    5,  3  (v.  787),  G;   5,  8  (v.  924),  G.     On  Phorm, 

5,  3,  12  (v.  795),  see  p.  151  f.     On  Ad.  5,  8  (v.  924),  see  p.  153  f. 

•  And.  3.  I  (v.  459),  C,  E,  M;  5,  4  (v.  904),  E,  G,  M;  Haui.  4,  i  (v.  614), 
G,  M;  4,  4  (v.  723).  C;  ^««.  3»  2  (v.  454),  C,  G;  4.  7  (v.  770,  C;  5,  8  (v. 
1031),  D,  L,  Paris.  10304;  Phorm.  2,  3  (v.  348),  A;  2,  4  (v.  441),  C.  On  Haut, 
4»  4  (v.  723)*  see  p.  158  f.  On  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  1031),  see  p.  150  f.  On  Phorm,  2, 
3  (v.  348),  see  p.  114. 

3  Phorm.  I,  4  (v.  179),  G;  2,  i  (v.  231),  G;  2,  3  (v.  348).  C;  5,  3,  12  (v. 
795),  D,  L. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  107 

characters.  In  nearly  every  scene  which  has  two  speakers,  these  are 
named  or  painted  in  the  usual  order.  Of  scenes  with  three  speakers, 
the  percentage  that  have  some  deviation  from  the  normal  arrangement 
is  13  in  A,  16  in  L,  22  in  D,  23  in  Paris.  10304,  25  in  M,  29  in  G,  32 
in  E,  and  37  in  C.  For  scenes  with  four  or  more  characters  the  per- 
centage is  39  in  M,  40  in  E,  47  in  G,  50  in  A,  53  in  L,  59  in  D,  Paris. 

10304,  and  77  in  C. 

From  this  general  comparison  of  the  scene-headings  and  the  minia- 
tures with  reference  to  the  order  of  characters,  it  is  clear  that  every 
mark  of  the  one  is  found  in  the  other.  This  can  scarcely  be  due  to 
chance,  but  indicates  the  existence  of  a  very  close  relationship  between 
the  two.  Wherever  the  regular  arrangement  both  of  the  names  and  of 
the  figures  is  found— and  this  is  true  of  the  great  majority  of  scenes— 
there  is  nothing  in  the  order  of  characters  to  show  the  nature  of  the 
relationship.  In  such  places  the  order  of  names  might  have  been 
determined  by  the  order  of  figures,  or  the  artist  might  have  painted  the 
figures  in  the  order  of  the  names  in  the  headings,  or  both  the  headings 
and  the  miniatures  might  have  been  produced  by  the  artist  at  the  same 
time.  Without  evidence  other  than  the  order  of  characters  in  such 
scenes,  these  theories  seem  equally  possible.  The  evidence  to  decide 
the  relationship  must  be  sought,  first,  in  scenes  where  either  the  head- 
ings or  the  miniatures,  or  both,  have  an  unusual  order  of  characters ; 
secondly,  in  scenes  where  either  the  headings  or  the  miniatures,  or 
both,  contain  mute  characters ;  thirdly,  in  the  role-words  in  the  scene- 
headings. 

Before  the  evidence  from  these  sources  is  presented,  it  seems  advis- 
able to  mention  the  little  that  has  been  written  about  the  origin  of  the 
scene-headings,  or  about  the  existence  of  some  relationship  between 
the  headings  and  the  miniatures.  References  to  these  subjects  are  few, 
and  on  the  history  of  the  headings  relate  to  Plautus  more  frequently 
than  to  Terence.  Spengel,  depending  chiefly  on  the  mss.  of  Plautus, 
held  that  originaUy  the  roles  alone  made  up  the  headings,  the  names 
being  a  later  addition.^  His  argument  seems  to  imply  a  belief  that  the 
headings  made  up  of  roles  must  be  assigned  to  classical  times,  if  not  to 
the  authors  themselves.    On  somewhat  different  grounds,  but  with  equal 


>  Sitzungsber.  d.  bayr.  Akad.  phiL-hist.  CL,  1883,  II,  p.  257  ff. 


io8 


John  Calvin  Watson 


confidence,  Seyffert  supports  Spengel's  view  about  the  priority  of  the 
rdles.^  In  regard  to  the  time  of  their  origin  Seyffert  says  nothing,  but 
he  does  conjecture  that  it  was  only  in  the  later  period  of  the  empire 
that  the  names  were  added  in  the  headings.  The  source  of  the  names 
Seyffert  finds  in  the  text.  This  conclusion  rests  upon  errors  of  different 
kinds  found  in  the  names  both  in  the  text  and  in  the  headings. 

Such  is  the  view  that  appears  to  prevail  at  the  present  time.  A  some- 
what different  theory  has  lately  been  proposed  by  Prescott  and  approved 
by  Lindsay.^  They  suggest  that  in  the  archetype  of  the  Palatine  mss. 
of  Plautus  the  names  were  in  some  way  omitted,  leaving  only  the  roles 
in  the  headings,  and  that  the  names  have  been  supplied  by  copyists 
from  the  text  of  the  plays.  In  stating  his  conclusion,  Prescott  assumes 
that  not  only  the  names  in  the  Ambrosianus,  but  the  roles  in  all  mss. 
have  come  down  from  Plautus  himself. 

On  the  origin  of  the  headings  transmitted  in  the  mss.  of  Terence, 
Dziatzko  is  the  only  scholar,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  has  expressed  an 
opinion.  In  the  second  edition  of  the  Phormio  he  assigns  the  headings 
to  the  second  half  of  the  second  century  b.c,  or  shortly  thereafter.* 
This  is  retained  in  Hauler's  revision  of  Dziatzko's  edition.*  For  this 
view  no  evidence  is  adduced  or  arguments  given,  except  that  in  the 
period  mentioned,  Terence,  together  with  other  writers,  was  the  subject 
of  the  study  and  research  of  Roman  scholars.  The  assignment  of  the 
headings  to  the  writers  themselves,  or  even  to  a  very  eariy  period,  rests 
if  not  on  theory,  at  least  on  very  slight  evidence.  To  such  an  extent 
has  it  been  accepted  that  the  traditional  orthography  in  the  headings 
has  been  changed  to  that  employed  in  the  text  of  the  plays. 

Leo  and  Schlee  are  the  only  scholars  who  have  discussed  the  possi- 
bility of  some  connection  between  the  miniatures  and  the  scene-headings. 
Leo  barely  referred  to  it,  only  to  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  relation.* 
He  reached  this  conclusion  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  differences  in 
scene-division,  but  also  in  part  because  of  the  omission  of  the  names  of 

»  Burnan's  Jahresbericht,  XLVII  (1886),  p.  10  f. 

»  Cf.  Prescott,  Harv,  Stud.  IX,  p.  102;   Lindsay,  Ed.  CapHvi,  Introd.,  p.  8.  and 
Am.  Jour.  Phil.  XXI,  p.  29. 
^  Einidiung,  p.  19. 

*  Allgem.  EinL^  p.  26. 

*  Rh.  Mm.  XXXVIII,  p.  346. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  109 

mute  characters  in  headings  where  their  figures  are  shown  in  the  pic- 
tures. Schlee  went  even  further  and  tried  to  prove  that  the  headings 
transmitted  with  the  miniatures  in  the  illustrated  mss.  did  not  come 
from  the  original  manuscript  adorned  with  pictures,  but  from  some 
member  of  the  8  family.^  Leo  had  compared  the  mss.  chiefly  of  the  y 
and  8  families.  Schlee  pointed  out  a  number  of  places  where  mute 
characters  are  shown  in  the  miniatures,  but  are  not  named  in  the  Bem- 
bine  headings,  or  where  these  mss.  are  at  variance  in  the  distribution  of 
the  scenes.  On  these  grounds  he  denied  the  existence  of  any  relation- 
ship between  the  miniatures  and  the  Bembine  headings. 

The  evidence  used  by  Leo  and  Schlee  was  wholly  inadequate,  and 
has,  in  fact,  led  them  to  precisely  the  wrong  conclusion.  It  has  already 
been  shown  in  this  paper  that  the  normal  arrangement  of  names  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  figures.  This  alone  indicates  that  the  headings 
and  the  miniatures  are  in  some  way  connected.  It  remains,  by  a  careful 
analysis  of  the  evidence,  to  show  that  the  relationship  is  so  close  that 
one  must  owe  its  origin  to  the  other.  This  evidence  will  lead  to  the 
conclusions  that  the  miniatures  were  prior  to  the  headings ;  that  the 
headings  are  not  due  to  the  artist,  but  to  some  later  person  who  took 
the  names  from  the  text  and  applied  them  to  the  figures  in  the  minia- 
tures ;  that  the  names  and  the  roles  in  the  headings  are  due  to  the  same 
person  and  have  been  transmitted  together. 

In  subsequent  comparisons  of  the  headings  and  the  miniatures,  all 
scenes  are  disregarded  in  which  both  the  order  of  names  and  the  collo- 
cation of  figures  are  normal.  For  scenes  in  which  the  order  of  names 
in  the  several  mss.  is  unusual,  the  miniatures  are  classified  in  the 
table  given  on  p.  no. 

The  first  two  columns  in  this  table  show  that  in  every  manuscript  the 
majority  of  headings  with  an  unusual  order  of  names  are  found  in  scenes 
where  the  miniatures  have  an  unusual  collocation  of  figures.  The  per- 
centage of  such  headings  is  55  in  M,  56  in  G,  58  in  D,  59  in  E,  63  in 
L,  67  in  A,  D2,  and  72  in  Paris.  10304.  Moreover,  a  comparison  of 
the  order  of  names  with  the  order  of  figures  in  places  where  they  are 
both  unusual,  shows  that  they  are  identical  four  times  each  in  A,  L, 
Paris.  10304,  three  times  each  in  D,  G,  twice  in  the  later  portions  of  D, 


*  Scholia  Terentiana^  p.  6  ff. 


1 


1 


III  I 


I  lO 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Classification  of  the  Miniatures  in  Places  where  the  Order  of 

Names  is  Unusual 


Ordkr  of  Figu 

RKS 

Differences 

Miniatures 

Total 
Headings 

in  Scene. 
Division 

Lost  with 
Tcxt» 

Unusual 

Usual 

Doubtful 

A 

8 

0 

I 

0 

12 

D 

II 

0 

I 

2 

19 

D« 

2 

0 

0 

0 

l 

G 

10 

I 

I 

I 

iS 

L 

10 

0 

I 

3 

16 

M 

12 

I 

I 

I 

22 

Paris.  10304 

13 

0 

I 

I 

iS 

E 

13 

I 

0 

I 

22 

and  six  times  each  in  E,  M.*  In  these  scenes  the  headings  exactly 
reproduce  the  unusual  order  of  characters  found  in  the  miniatures. 
For  the  violation  of  the  usual  collocation  of  figures  the  explanation  is 
obvious.  For  the  unusual  arrangement  of  names  no  satisfactory  expla- 
nation has  hitherto  been  offered.  In  the  scenes  named  it  seems  certain 
that  the  order  of  figures  has  determined  the  order  of  names. 

Of  the  rest  of  the  headings  which  have  an  unusual  order  of  names  in 
scenes  where  the  collocation  of  figures  is  unusual,  nearly  all  preserve 
unmistakable  signs  that  the  order  of  names  at  one  time  was  identical 
with  the  order  of  figures,  or  was  intended  to  be  so.  To  make  this  clear, 
scenes  where  such  headings  are  found  are  discussed  in  the  order  of 
plays  in  Dziatzko's  edition. 


>  The  two  scenes  are  And.  5,  i  (v.  %io)  and  5,  2  (v.  842).  Miniatures  for 
these  places  are  found  in  the  Dunelmensis,  but  there  is  some  reason  to  doubt  their 
genuineness.    On  this  see  p.  168  f. 

*  The  scenes  are:  And.  2,  i  (v.  301),  E;  2,  5  (v.  412),  D*,  E;  2,  6  (v.  432), 
E,  M;  3,  2  (v.  481),  E,  M;  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242),  A;  4,  7  (v.  829),  A;  Eun.  3, 
5  (v-  549),  M;  4»  4(v.  668),  M;  5,  8  (v.  1031),  G;  Phorm.  2,  i  (v.  231),  A,  D, 
L,  Paris.  10304;  4,  3  (v.  606),  D*,  L;  5,  3  (v.  784),  E;  Ad.  2,  4  (v.  265),  A, 
Paris.  10304  (roles);  3,  4  (v.  447),  D,  E,  G,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304;  4,  2  (v.  540), 
D,  G,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304. 

To  this  list  must  be  added  the  headings  preserved  before  And.  2,  i  (v.  301),  in 
two  Mss.  of  the  so-called  Donatus  commentary.  See  P.  Wessner's  edition,  Vol.  I, 
1902,  Praef.^  p.  xlvii. 


Sce7ie-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


III 


And.  3,  I  (v.  459).  The  headings  in  D,  E,  G,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304 
give  the  names  of  the  two  women  on  the  left,  and  of  the  two  men  on 
the  right,^  in  this  corresponding  with  the  miniatures.  Moreover,  in  E,  M 
Davus  is  named  between  Simo  and  the  women,  thus  preserving  the 
order  of  figures.  In  these  two  mss.  Glycerium  is  named  because  she  is 
shown  in  the  pictures.  In  M,  Lesbia  is  named  first  because  the  figure 
supporting  Glycerium  was  thought  to  be  this  character.^ 

And.  5,  4  (v.  904).  As  in  the  miniatures,  Pamphilus  is  the  first 
character  in  E,  G,  M.  Except  for  the  last  two  senes^  who  can  easily 
be  confused,  the  headings  in  these  mss.  reproduce  the  order  of  figures. 
That  this  was  true  also  of  the  copies  from  which  D,  L,  Paris.  10304  are 
derived,  scarcely  admits  of  doubt.  These  still  preserve  the  order  of  the 
senes  found  in  G,  M,  of  the  same  family,  and  examples  are  found  in 
every  manuscript  where  the  first  name  was  displaced,  if  it  was  not  that 
of  the  first  speaker.^ 


*  In  Paris.  10304  Simo  is  the  second  character  named,  Lesbia,  the  third,  but  this 
is  shown  by  the  roles  obstetrix  in  second  place  and  senex  in  third  to  be  a  change. 

^  A  heading  which  must  have  come  from  one  like  that  in  M  is  preserved  in  Pari- 
sinus  A  of  the  Donatus  commentary.  Davus  and  Simo  are  named  in  the  same  order 
as  in  M,  Glycerium  is  not  mentioned,  while  the  name  of  Lesbia  according  to  the 
usual  practice  was  transferred  from  the  first  place  to  the  last. 

^  Changes  of  this  nature  are  pointed  out  in  the  discussion  of  individual  scenes, 
but  it  seems  advisable  to  give  complete  statistics.  According  to  the  theory  here 
presented,  the  names  originally  coincided,  or  were  intended  to  coincide  with  the 
figures.  In  about  24  places,  either  from  the  correct  identification  of  figures  which 
cannot  easily  be  confused,  or  from  errors  in  identifying  figures  which  can  easily  be 
confused,  the  first  name  written  on  the  left  was  not  that  of  the  first  speaker.  Wher- 
ever this  unusual  order  of  names  was  found,  the  analogy  of  regular  headings  must 
have  prompted  copyists  to  alter  the  arrangement,  in  order  to  give  the  name  of  the 
first  speaker  its  usual  place.  In  Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304,  the 
original  assignment  still  remains.  In  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  A,  G,  and  Phorm.  2,  4 
(v.  441),  D,  E,  L,  the  names  have  in  part  been  reduced  to  the  normal  order.  In 
five  scenes  which  have  but  two  characters  each,  any  change  produced  the  usual 
order.  The  original  assignment  at  these  places  is  still  found  in  And.  2,  6  (v.  432), 
E,  M;  Haut.  2,  2  (v.  230),  M;  Eun.  3,  5  (v.  549),  M  (?);  Phorm.  I,  3  (v.  153), 
E,  M;  Ad.  5,  3  (v.  787),  G.  In  the  remaining  thirteen  scenes,  names  now  found 
in  one  or  more  mss.  on  the  right  were  originally  in  all  probability  first  on  the  left. 
These  are:  And.  3,  i  (v.  459),  Don.,  cf.  M;  5,  4  (v.  904),  D,  L,  Paris.  10304,  cf. 
E,  G,  M;  Haut.  4,  I  (v.  614),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304;  4,  4  (v.  723),  D,  G,  M; 
Eun.  4,  4  (v.  668),  E,  cf.  M;  4,  7  (v.  771),  E;    Phorm.  2,  3  (v.  348),  A,  D,  M; 


112 


John  Calvin  Watson 


HauL  4,  I  (v.  614).  The  figures  of  the  two  women  were  confused 
so  that  the  role  of  the  nutrix  appeared  first  on  the  left,  the  name  of 
Sostrata  second.  That  some  one  has  taken  liberties  with  the  Bembine 
heading  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  nutrix  is  called  Canthara,  though 
she  is  nowhere  named  in  the  text.^  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  names 
were  reduced  by  this  person  to  the  usual  order.  In  other  mss.  the  role 
nutrix  was  removed  from  the  first  to  the  last  place,  producing  the  order 
of  characters  still  found  in  D,  Paris.  10304.  In  G,  M,  also,  the  nutrix 
is  still  named  last  of  all,  but  in  some  way  the  names  of  Sostrata  and 
Chremes  have  been  interchanged. 

Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723).  The  first  figure  was  given  the  name  of  Phrygia, 
the  second,  Bacchis.  In  order  that  the  name  of  Bacchis  might  be  first 
as  usual,  some  one  removed  the  name  of  Phrygia  to  the  last  place  in  the 
heading.  This  gives  the  order  of  names  preserved  in  D,  an  order  that 
still  reproduces  the  relative  positions  of  Clinia  and  the  two  slaves  in  the 
picture.  The  same  order  is  found  also  in  G,  M,  save  that  the  names  of 
Clinia  and  Dromo  have  been  interchanged. 

Eun,  3,  1  (v.  454).  The  last  two  figures  on  the  right  in  the  minia- 
tures are  Parmeno  and  Phrygia.  In  the  headings  at  this  place  in  A,  G 
their  names  still  occupy  this  position.  Gnatho,  who  would  be  named 
fourth  in  the  normal  order,  is  the  first  in  the  miniatures.  Such  was 
probably  the  position  of  his  name  in  manuscripts  from  which  A,  G 
are  derived.*    The  interchange  of  the  first  and  third  names  in  the  Bem- 


3,  2  (v.  485),  A,  E,  M;  3,  3  (v.  534),  E;  4,  5  (v.  713),  E;  Hec,  3,  5  (v.  451), 
E;  4,  4  (v.  623),  E,  L;  Ad,  5,  2  (v.  776),  A,  D,  E,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304.  To 
these  should  probably  be  added  three  scenes  in  which  mute  characters,  whose  figures 
are  painted  first  on  the  left,  are  named  last  on  the  right:  Hec,  5,  2  (v.  767),  A; 
Ad.  2,  I  (v.  15s),  A,  D,  G,  L,  M,  V;   3,  3  (v.  355),  A. 

*  This  is  found  in  the  Bembine  heading  alone.  In  Eun.  5,  5  (v.  971),  the  same 
manuscript  gives  Demea  as  the  name  of  the  senexy  while  in  the  later  mss.  he  is  called 
Laches.  In  Ad,  2,  i  (v.  155),  the  Bembinus  gives  the  name  of  the  meretrix  as 
Bacchis.  Since  none  of  these  names  are  found  in  the  text  of  the  plays  named,  they 
are  equally  without  authority.  They  must  be  ascribed  to  copyists,  who  supplied 
them  from  characters  of  the  same  r61e  and  name  in  other  plays.  Cf.  Haupt,  Opusc, 
III,  p.  457,  and  Spengel,  op.  cit.y  p.  258  ff. 

On  the  name  Dromo,  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776),  see  p.  118,  n.  i. 

'  In  one  of  the  mss.  containing  the  Donatus  commentary  a  heading  is  preserved 
in  which  the  order  of  names  is  identical  with  that  in  the  Bembinus.  Cf.  P.  Wess- 
ner's  edition,  Fratf.^  Vol.  I,  p.  xlviii. 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  113 

bine  heading  gives  the  exact  order  of  the  five  speakers  in  the  pictures. 
The  same  result  can  be  produced  in  G  by  changing  Gnatho's  name  from 
third  to  first  place.  Thraso,  not  Thais,  is  named  first  in  the  heading  in 
this  manuscript.  The  failure  to  give  the  first  name  the  usual  position,  is 
probably  due  to  a  copyist's  confusing  the  notae  of  the  characters  named. 

Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643).  In  the  headings  in  E,  G,  as  in  the  miniatures, 
Phaedria  appears  between  the  two  ancillae.  The  order  of  names  is 
probably  due  to  an  error  in  the  identification  of  the  ancillae,  for  if  the 
names  of  these  were  interchanged,  the  headings  would  reproduce  the 
order  of  figures.  In  Paris.  10304  Phaedria  is  named  first,  followed  by 
Pythias  and  Dorias  in  this  order.  This  heading  has  probably  been  pro- 
duced by  removing  the  name  of  one  ancilla  from  the  first  place.  If  it 
was  the  name  of  Pythias,  the  order  was  originally  that  now  found  in 
E,  G ;  if  it  was  Dorias,  the  original  heading  reproduced  the  order  of 
figures. 

Eun,  4,  4  (v.  ddZ),  If  the  r61e  of  Doras  were  written  first  instead 
of  last  in  the  heading  in  E,  this  would  illustrate  the  order  of  figures, 
including  probably  that  of  the  two  ancillae.  That  Dorus  was  named 
first  in  some  manuscript  from  which  E  is  derived  is  neariy  certain,  since 
M,  to  which  E  is  in  some  way  related,^  still  has  the  name  of  Dorus  in 
this  position. 

Eun,  4,  7  (v.  771)  .  If  the  name  of  Sanga  were  written  first  on  the 
left  instead  of  last  on  the  right,  the  heading  in  E  would  give  the  precise 
order  of  speaking-characters,  according  to  the  interpretation  of  Wieseler 
approved  in  this  paper.  The  first  four  names,  in  other  words,  still  pre- 
serve the  order  of  the  last  four  figures  of  speakers. 

Eun,  5,  8  (v.  1 031).  The  scene-headings  at  this  place  afford  a  good 
illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  differences  in  the  mss.  have  obscured 
the  relationship  existing  between  the  headings  and  the  miniatures.  The 
differences  in  scene-division  at  v.  1049  were  cited  by  Leo  in  support  of 
his  argument  against  such  a  relationship. ^  There  can  be  little  doubt, 
however,  that  at  one  time  all  mss.  had  a  new  scene  beginning  at  the 
verse  named.*     The  name  of  Phaedria,  who  enters  at  this  place,  was 

»  These  two  mss.  agree  against  all  others  in  And.  2,  2  (v.  338) ;  2,  6  (v.  432) ; 
3,  2  (v.  481);  Phorm.  i,  3  (v.  153).  They  are  also  in  close  agreement  in  And. 
3>  I  (v.  459)  and  Phorm.  3,  2  (v.  485). 

«  Cf.  p.  108.  3  Seep.  isof. 


114 


John  Calvin  Waisan 


M 


inserted  in  the  previous  heading  when  the  two  scenes  were  united  in  A 
and  the  8  mss.  One  proof  of  this  is  the  fact  that  if  the  name  of  Phae- 
dria  is  dropped  from  the  headings  in  A,  D,  L,  Paris.  10304  before 
V.  1 03 1,  the  remaining  four  names  reproduce  the  order  of  figures  in  the 
pictures.  This  order,  it  has  been  pointed  out,*  depends  not  upon  the 
dialogue,  but  upon  a  distribution  of  the  dialogue  preserved  only  in  the 
illustrated  mss. 

Phorm,  2,  I  (v.  231).  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  G  the  name  of 
Demipho  was  accidentally  displaced,  and  added  after  the  other  two 
names.  These  names  still  show  the  order  of  Phaedria  and  Geta.  If 
Demipho  is  restored  to  the  first  place  in  the  heading,  G  will  agree  with 
D,  L,  Paris.  10304,  which  belong  to  the  same  family,  in  preserving  the 
order  of  all  the  figures. 

Phorm.  2,  3  (v.  348).  The  headings  give  evidence  strongly  con- 
firming my  interpretation  of  the  miniatures  at  this  place.^  If  this 
was  correct,  the  order  of  figures  is  as  follows :  Phormio,  Geta,  Demipho, 
Hegio,  Cratinus,  Crito.  Since  Demipho  is  the  first  speaker,  some 
change  was  necessary  in  a  heading  originating  from  a  correct  assign- 
ment of  names  to  the  figures.  The  change  was  made  by  removing  to 
the  end  of  the  heading  the  first  two  names,  the  relative  order  of  which 
was  preserved.  The  result  is  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  names  pre- 
served in  A.  If  the  names  of  the  advocati  are  omitted,  the  same  order 
is  found  in  D,  M.*  In  the  Bembinus,  therefore,  the  advocati,  as 
Umpfenbach  observed,*  cling  closely  to  Demipho,  and  the  heading  is 
strong  evidence  that  as  early  at  least  as  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  the 
first  figure  was  identified  as  Phormio. 

Phorm,  2,  4  (v.  441).  The  headings  in  D,  E,  L  still  have  the  order 
of  the  advocati  pictured  in  the  miniatures.  For  this  reason  it  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  the  names  of  Demipho  and  Geta  have  been  inter- 
changed. 

Phorm.  4,  5  (v.  713).  The  order  of  names  in  E  arose  from  a  cor- 
rect assignment  to  the  figures.  The  name  of  Chremes,  the  third 
speaker,  was  not  permitted  to  remain  first  on  the  left,  but  was  dis- 
placed and  written  last  in  the  heading. 


'  See  p.  90  f. 

^  For  the  heading  preserved  at  this  place  in  L,  see  p.  124. 

*  Ed.  crit.  Prae/.y  p.  x. 


*  See  p.  92  ff. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  115 

Phorm.  5,  9  (v.  990).  The  position  of  Phormio,  who  is  named  last 
in  the  headings  in  A,  Paris.  10304,  is  explained  by  the  pictures.  This 
is  another  instance  of  an  order  of  names  in  the  Bembinus  opposed  to 
the  distribution  of  the  dialogue  preserved  in  this  manuscript. 

Such  is  the  list  of  scenes  where  the  names  do  not  reproduce  the  pre- 
cise order  of  figures,  but  do  contain  indubitable  evidence  that  in  eariier 
MSS.  they  did  so,  or  were  intended  to  do  so.  The  number  of  headings 
thus  explained  is  four  each  in  A,  L,  five  in  M,  six  in  Paris.  10304,  and 
seven  each  in  D,  E,  G.  To  these  may  be  added  those  which  exactly 
preserve  the  unusual  order  of  figures,  thus  giving  the  totals  for  scenes 
where  both  the  miniatures  and  the  headings  have  an  unusual  order  of 
characters,  and  the  headings  preserve  the  evidence  of  their  origin  from 
the  pictures.  Scenes  of  this  nature  are  eight  each  in  A,  L,  ten  each  in 
D,  G,  Paris.  10304,  two  in  D^,  eleven  in  M,  and  thirteen  in  E.  In  such 
scenes  the  number  of  headings  that  contain  some  violation  of  the  usual 
arrangement,  and  yet  have  no  clear  indication  of  their  origin  from  the 
miniatures  is  one  each  in  D,  M,  two  in  L,  and  three  in  Paris.  10304.^ 
There  are  none  whatever  in  A,  E,  G.  In  part  of  the  exceptions  noted 
in  the  other  mss.  it  is  probable  that  changes  in  the  order  of  names  have 
been  such  that  they  can  no  longer  be  traced. 

The  next  class  of  scene-headings  to  require  notice  are  those  with  an 
unusual  order  of  names  in  scenes  where  the  collocation  of  figures  is  per- 
fectly regular.  Headings  of  this  nature  vary  from  three  each  in  A,  L, 
Paris.  10304  to  seven  each  in  E,  M.  It  is  here  that  the  theory  advanced 
in  this  paper  ought  to  break  down  if  it  is  incorrect.  Instead  of  break- 
ing down,  it  receives  from  this  source  some  of  its  strongest  support.  In 
nearly  all  such  scenes  the  unusual  order  of  names  originated  in  errors  in 
the  assignment  of  names  to  the  figures.^     Except  in  five  instances,  the 


*  These  places  are  Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723),  Paris.  10304;  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  103 1),  M; 
Phorm.  s,  9  (v.  990),  L;  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299),  Paris.  10304;  5,  7  (v.  899),  D,  L, 
Paris.  10304.  On  the  heading  in  L  before  Phorm.  5,  9  (v.  990)  see  further  p.  152  f. 
On  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299),  see  p.  143,  n.  2. 

«  The  exceptions  are  And.  2,  4  (v.  404),  D«;  Haut.  3,  3  (v.  562),  D;  Eun. 
5,  4,  21  (v.  943),  M;  Ad.  4,  I  (v.  517),  E;  5,  i  (v.  763),  G.  The  heading 
referred  to  in  M,  has  come,  not  from  the  miniatures,  but  from  a  late  change  in  the 
division  of  scenes.  On  this  see  p.  142.  The  other  four  must  be  ascribed  to  accident, 
or  to  the  carelessness  of  copyists. 


ii6 


John  Calvin  Watson 


headings  contain  characters  whose  figures  in  the  miniatures  are  easily 
confused,  and  it  is  in  the  names  of  these  that  the  unusual  order  is  found.^ 
The  original  assignment  still  remains  once  each  in  A,  L,  twice  each  in 
E,  G,  Paris.  10304,^  three  times  in  D,  and  four  times  in  M.*  In  some 
scenes  having  three  or  four  characters,  figures  having  the  same  role  are 
placed  first  on  the  left  in  the  miniatures.  The  error  in  the  assignment 
caused  the  name  of  a  character,  who  is  not  the  first  speaker,  to  be  written 
first  on  the  left  at  these  places.  Some  of  these  still  remain,  but  in  other 
cases  the  first  name  was  displaced  in  order  to  give  the  name  of  the  first 
speaker  its  usual  position.  In  the  class  of  headings  under  consideration 
this  has  happened  once  each  in  D,  G,  Paris.  10304,  twice  each  in  A,  L, 
M,  and  four  times  in  E.* 

Of  scenes  with  headings  of  this  class,  three  are  important  enough  to 
deserve  special  mention. 

Haut  5,  5  (v.  1045).  This  is  the  place  where  it  is  difficult  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  two  figures  on  the  right  in  the  miniatures.  These 
two  figures  represent  Sostrata  and  her  son  Clitipho.  The  identification 
given  in  the  discussion  of  this  place  rests  entirely  upon  the  dress  of  the 
two  characters.*^  Since  the  difference  in  this  respect  is  small,  an  error 
in  the  assignment  was  easy.  That  such  an  error  was  made,  is  probable, 
since  the  headings  at  this  place  in  A,  D  have  Clitipho's  name  third, 
Sostrata's  last  on  the  right.  This  was  probably  also  true  of  the  manu- 
script from  which  G  was  copied,  for  in  the  heading  in  G,  Sostrata  is 


>  Of  the  twelve  scenes  with  a  total  of  29  headings  of  this  nature,  eleven  scenes 
with  a  total  of  26  headings  have  characters  of  the  same  r81e. 

*  In  the  heading  preserved  in  G  before  Phorm.  1,4  (v.  179)  the  name  of  Geta 
was  displaced,  probably  by  accident,  and  written  last  of  all.     Cf .  p.  1 14  on  Phorm, 

2,  I  (v.  231). 

»  The  places  are  And,  4,  2  (v.  684),  D,  L,  Paris.  10304;  Haui.  2,  2  (v.  230), 
M;  Haut.  5,  5  (v.  1045),  A,  D;  Phorm.  i,  3  (v.  153),  E,  M;  i,  4  (v.  179),  E, 
G,  M;  Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304;  Ad.  5,  3  (v.  787),  G. 

*  The  places  are  Phorm.  3,  2  (v.  485),  A,  M;  3,  3  (v.  534),  E;  Hec.  3,  5  (v. 
451),  E;  4,  4  (v.  623),  E,  L;  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776),  A,  D,  E,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304. 

*  The  difficulty  which  copyists  found  in  distinguishing  between  the  figures  of 
women  and  young  men  is  well  illustrated  by  the  miniatures  before  And.  3,  i  (v.  459) 
and  Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723) .  In  the  first  of  these  the  corrector  in  C  failed  to  recognize 
that  the  fourth  figure  represents  a  female  character.  In  the  second  both  the  copyist 
and  the  conector  confused  the  figures  of  male  and  female  characters. 


A 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  117 

named  in  second  place,  and  this  is  best  explained  as  an  unsuccessful 
attempt  to  reduce  the  names  to  the  normal  order. 

Fhorm.  3,  2  (v.  485).  The  appearance  of  the  two  young  men  on 
the  left  is  so  similar  that  they  can  be  distinguished  only  with  the  aid  of 
the  text.  This  source  of  evidence  makes  it  very  probable  that  Phaedria 
is  the  first  and  Antipho  the  second  figure.  In  early  mss.,  however,  the 
names  were  assigned  in  the  opposite  order.  Since  Phaedria  is  the  first 
speaker  in  the  scene,  a  change  was  natural  in  order  to  give  his  name  the 
usual  position.  To  effect  this  the  name  of  Antipho  was  transferred  to 
the  third  place,  apparently,  where  it  is  now  found  in  A,  E,  M,  thus 
giving  the  only  example  of  a  separation  of  two  characters  of  the  same 
role  in  the  Bembine  headings.  The  position  of  Antipho's  name  may 
have  been  determined  by  the  fact  that  he  is  the  third  speaker,  but  there 
is  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  failure  to  name  him,  either  next 
after  Phaedria,  or  last  of  all.^ 

Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776).  The  miniatures  present  two  slaves  on  the  left 
and  Demea  on  the  right.  The  two  slaves,  typical  of  their  class,  can  be 
distinguished  only  with  the  aid  of  the  text.     The  first  of  them  is  shown 

*  Since  Geta  is  not  named  in  the  heading  preserved  in  E,  as  a  result  of  which  the 
name  of  Antipho  is  last  on  the  right,  it  might  be  supposed  that  this  gives  the  key  to 
the  problem.  It  is  true  that  in  the  majority  of  defective  headings  the  names  omitted 
are  those  of  characters  who  not  only  have  unimportant  parts,  but  who  also  speak 
very  few  words  in  the  scenes  in  question.  Headings  of  this  nature  are  as  follows : 
Haut.  4,  I  (v.  614),  E,  L;  4,  4  (v.  723),  E,  L;  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  (D),  E,  L, 
Paris.  10304;  4,  7  (v.  771),  D,  L;  Phorm.  3,  2  (r.  485),  E;  Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243), 
E;  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299),  E;  5,  7  (v.  899),  E,  G;  5,  8  (v.  924),  E.  These  places 
afford  no  evidence  that  in  the  names  of  speakers,  at  least,  the  original  headings  were 
defective.  Such  a  theory  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Bembinus  no  names  of 
speakers  are  omitted,  and  by  the  close  connection  between  the  headings  in  all  classes 
of  MSS.  It  may  be  considered  certain  that  where  the  names  of  speakers  are  omitted, 
this  is  due  to  copyists  in  the  transmission  of  the  mss. 

Defective  headings,  not  included  above,  are  of  several  classes.  In  five  headings 
which  omit  the  names  of  important  characters,  the  defect  was  made  by  late  changes 
in  the  distribution  of  scenes.  These  ^xq  .Eun.  5,  8  (v.  1031),  E;  Phorm.  5,  8 
(v.  894),  D;  5,  9  (v.  990),  M;  Ad.  5,  8  (v.  924),  L,  Paris.  10304.  On  the  first 
see  p.  150  f.,  the  second  and  third,  p.  152  f.,  the  fourth,  p.  153  f. 

Two  headings  have  become  defective  by  the  accidental  omission  of  names :  And. 
2,  I  Cv.  301),  G;  4,  I  (v.  625),  M. 

In  nine  headings  Ita  G,  all  in  the  Phormio,  the  names  were  all  omitted  except 
those  of  the  first,  or  of  the  first  and  second  speakers. 


< » 


ii8 


John  Calvin  Watson 


with  a  strong  gesture  in  the  direction  of  the  other  two  characters ;  the 
second  is  holding  the  end  of  Demea's  pallium.  Since  the  dialogue  in 
V.  5  ff.  indicates  that  Syras  makes  some  attempt  to  prevent  Demea  from 
entering  the  house,  toward  the  door  of  which  the  figure  of  Demea  is 
turned,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  figure  holding  Demea's /tf///«»i 
is  Syrus.  The  collocation,  therefore,  is  normal.  Since  there  is  little  or 
nothing  in  the  manner  in  whfch  Syrus  is  holding  the  pallium  that  indi- 
cates his  purpose,  and  since  the  gesture  of  the  other  slave  might  easily 
be  thought  to  be  directed  toward  Demea,  the  person  who  made  up  the 
headings  erred  in  his  interpretation.  To  the  first  figure  he  gave  the 
name  Syrus,  to  the  second,  the  m\t  puer  and  possibly  the  name  Dromo.^ 
The  role  puer  in  the  headings  at  this  place  is  inexplicable  on  any  other 
grounds.^  Since  the  character  thus  denoted  is  the  first  speaker,  the 
usual  change  was  made  in  order  to  give  his  name  (or  role)  the  first 
place.  The  name  of  Syrus  was  transferred  to  the  end  of  the  heading, 
where  it  still  remains  in  A,  D,  E,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304.  In  G  the  head- 
ing was  never  written.  With  this  single  exception,  the  non-illustrated 
Mss.  give  the  name  Dromo  next  before  Demea,  an  order  that  betrays 
the  misinterpretation  of  the  miniatures  by  the  author  of  the  scene- 
headings. 

This  concludes  the  list  of  scenes  in  which  the  collocation  of  figures 
is  normal,  and  the  order  of  names  is  unusual.  Of  thirty-four  headings 
of  this  nature,  all  but  five  can  easily  be  explained  as  arising  from  errors 
in  naming  characters  pictured  in  the  miniatures. 

The  third  class  of  headings  in  the  table  on  p.  1 10  covers  those  found 
in  places  where  the  order  of  figures  is  in  doubt.  The  only  examples  of 
such  headings  are  those  in  E,  G,  M,  before  And,  2,  2  (v.  338).  These 
are  to  be  explained  as  representing  one  of  the  two  possible  interpreta- 
tions  of  the  miniatures. 


*  Though  Dromo  is  the  name  of  a  mute  character  in  v.  376,  there  is  no  ground 
for  believing  that  it  is  the  name  of  the  first  speaker  in  the  scene  under  consideration. 
The  name  Stephanio  would  be  quite  as  appropriate,  but,  like  the  name  Dromo,  it 
would  be  another  example  of  an  arbitrary  assignment.  The  headings  in  mss.  of  all 
classes  give  the  name  Dromo,  showing  that  it  has  come  down  from  an  early  period, 
but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  author  of  the  headings.  In  the 
other  three  places  where  arbitrary  names  are  found  —  see  p.  112,  n.  i  —  differences 
in  the  mss.  show  in  all  probabiUty  that  they  are  due  to  copyists. 

■  Sec  p.  132  f. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


119 


To  the  remaining  two  classes  of  headings  which  have  an  unusual 
order  of  names,  a  peculiar  interest  attaches.  The  first  class  includes 
only  those  found  before  And.  5,  i  (v.  820)  and  5,  2  (v.  842),  at  both 
of  which  places  an  ancestor  of  C,  P  had  lost  the  miniatures  with  about 
fifty  verses  of  the  text.  The  second  class  consists  first,  of  headings  in 
A,  S  in  or  before  Phorni,  5,  3,  12  (v.  795),  secondly,  of  a  heading  in  G 
before  Ad,  5,  8  (v.  924).  In  the  first  of  these,  the  illustrated  mss.  have 
no  miniatures,  in  the  second,  they  have  miniatures,  but  the  number  of 
characters  pictured  is  not  that  named  in  G,  because  the  division  of 
scenes  in  v.  958  is  involved.  Since  the  headings  in  neither  of  these 
classes  can  be  compared  with  the  miniatures  in  C,  P,  they  will  be  dis- 
regarded for  the  present.  The  first  will  be  considered  in  discussing 
the  relationship  existing  among  the  several  illustrated  mss.,^  the  second 
in  connection  with  the  subject  of  scene-division.^ 

In  the  table  given  on  p.  no  the  miniatures  are  classified  for  each  of 
the  scenes  in  the  several  mss.  where  the  order  of  names  is  unusual. 
Similarly  for  the  thirty-four  scenes  where  the  collocation  of  figures  is 
unusual,  the  headings  are  classified  in  the  following  table  : 

Classification  of  the  Scene-Headings  in  Places  where  the 

Order  of  Figures  is  Unusual 


Order  of  Names 

Headings 

Differences 

Headings 

in  Scene- 
Division 

Lost  with 

Text 

Unusual 

Usual 

Defective 

Omitted 

A 

8 

14 

0 

0 

3 

9. 

D 

II 

II 

3 

0 

5 

4 

D« 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

G 

10 

12 

6 

0 

I 

5 

L 

10 

15 

5 

0 

3 

I 

M 

12 

IS 

I 

2 

3 

I 

Paris.  10304 

13 

14 

I 

I 

4 

I 

£ 

13 

13 

6 

0 

I 

I 

In  the  table  above  the  first  class  of  scenes  is  identical  with  the  first 
class  on  p.  no,  and  has  been  fully  considered.     The  second  class  of 


>  See  p.  168  f. 


*  See  p.  154. 


I20 


John  Calvin  Watson 


headings  includes  all  in  the  thirty-four  scenes  under  discussion  that 
have  the  normal  order  of  names.  If  the  theory  here  advanced  is 
correct,  in  these  scenes  also  the  names  were  originally  arranged,  or  were 
intended  to  be  arranged  in  the  peculiar  order  of  the  figures.  The  fact 
that  they  are  now  in  the  normal  order  is  easily  explained.  In  the  great 
majority  of  scenes  the  correct  assignment  of  names  to  the  figures  gave 
the  usual  arrangement  in  the  headings.  It  was  inevitable  that,  on  the 
analogy  of  these,  some  of  the  others  should  be  reduced  to  the  normal 
order.  The  evidence  that  changes  of  this  nature  have  been  made,  is 
presented  in  the  following  pages. 

The  tendency  to  reduce  an  unusual  order  of  names  to  one  that  is 
perfectly  normal,  is  well  illustrated  in  headings  where  the  arrangement 
of  characters  is  unusual,  but  not  identical  with  the  collocation  of  figures. 
In  nearly  all  of  these,  as  was  shown  above,  some  of  the  names  preserve 
the  order  of  the  figures,  while  the  rest  have  been  changed  either  to  the 
normal  order,  or  to  one  that  more  nearly  approaches  it. 

That  changes  have  been  made  in  the  order  of  names,  is  shown  by  the 
Mss.  of  the  S  family.  With  but  few  exceptions  the  headings  in  these 
are  descended  from  a  common  original,  as  is  proved  by  their  occasional 
agreement  in  a  peculiar  order  of  names,^  and  by  certain  characteristic 
marks  in  the  role-words  and  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names  and  roles.' 
Notwithstanding  their  origin  from  a  common  source,  the  headings  in 
MSS.  of  this  family  are  now  at  variance  in  the  order  of  names  in  thirty- 
five  scenes.  In  two  of  these  the  loss  of  the  miniatures,'  and  in  two 
others  differences  in  scene-division*  prevent  any  comparison  of  the 
order  of  names  with  the  order  of  figures.  In  four  places  the  peculiar 
order  of  names  must  be  ascribed  to  the  carelessness  of  copyists.*  In 
seventeen  scenes  it  reproduces  in  whole  or  in  part  the  unusual  colloca- 


*  Cf.  Ad.  3,  4  (v,  447);  4,  2  (v.  540);  5,  2  (v.  776).  Cf.  also  Hec.  2,  2 
(v.  243),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304,  and  the  position  of  the  name  Nausistrata,  Phorm, 
5,  3,  12  (v.  795). 

*  See  p.  165  ff.  This  test  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Lipsiensis,  in  which  the  rSles 
are  usually  omitted. 

»  And.  5,  I  (v.  820);   5,  2  (v.  842). 

*  Phorm.  5,  3,  12  (v.  795);  Ad.  5,  8  (v.  924). 

*  Haut.  3,  3  (v.  562),  D;  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299),  Paris.  10304;  5,  i  (v.  763),  G; 
5.  7  (v.  899),  D,  L,  Paris.  10304. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miiiiatiires  in   Terence 


121 


1/ 


tion  of  figures,^  in  another  place  it  represents  one  assignment  to  the 
doubtful  order  of  figures,^  while  in  nine  it  can  easily  be  explained  as 
arising  from  errors  in  the  assignment  of  names  to  a  normal  collocation 
of  figures.*  -In  twenty-seven  scenes,  therefore,  a  peculiar  order  of 
names,  having,  apparently,  some  connection  with  the  order  of  figures, 
is  preserved  in  part  of  the  mss.  of  the  8  family,  while  other  members  of 
the  same  family  transmit  either  the  normal  order  of  names,  or  one  that 
in  some  degree  approaches  it. 

From  this  comparison  of  the  several  mss.  of  the  8  family,  it  is  obvious 
that  changes  have  been  made  in  the  order  of  names.  The  direction  in 
which  the  changes  were  made  is  of  the  utmost  importance  in  determin- 
ing the  history  both  of  the  headings  and  of  the  miniatures.  If,  as  has 
previously  been  assumed,  these  were  in  no  way  connected  in  origin, 
they  could  scarcely  have  been  brought  together  in  a  manuscript  without 
some  attempt  to  adapt  the  names  to  the  figures.  On  the  ground  that 
the  copyist  of  D  had  more  space  than  he  could  conveniently  use, 
Dziatzko  conjectured  that  the  manuscript  of  which  D  is  a  copy  was 
illustrated.*  This  suggests  the  theory  that  the  varying  order  of  names 
is  the  result  of  changes  from  the  normal  order  to,  or  in  the  direction  of 
the  real  or  the  supposed  order  of  figures.  Such  a  theory  cannot  be 
accepted.  The  unusual  order  of  names  is  not  confined  to  any  manu- 
script of  the  8  family,  but  is  found  in  all.  This  disposes  of  Dziatzko's 
conjecture,  which  had  reference  to  D  alone,  for  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  in  the  headings  in  this  manuscript,  more  than  in  the  others, 
an  attempt  was  made  to  adapt  the  names  to  the  order  of  the  figures. 
It  may  be  suggested  that  the  representatives  of  the  8  family  from  which 
our  MSB.  are  derived,  were  illustrated,  and  that  the  adaptation  of  the 


»  And.  2,  6  (v.  432),  M;  3,  I  (v.  459) »  D»  G,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304;  3,  2  (v.  481), 
M;  5,  4  (v.  904),  G,  M;  Haut.  4,  i  (v.  614),  D,  Paris.  10304;  4,  4  (v.  723),  D; 
Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  G;  3,  5  (v.  549),  M;  4,  3  (v.  643),  G,  Paris.  10304;  4,  4 
(v.  668),  M;  5,  8  (v.  1031)  D,  G,  L,  Paris.  10304;  Phorm.  2,  i  (v.  231),  D,  G, 
L,  Paris.  10304;  2,  3  (v.  348)  D,  L,  M;  2,  4  (v.  441),  D,  L;  4,  3  (v.  606),  L; 
5,  9  (v.  990),  Paris.  10304;  Ad.  2,  4  (v.  265),  Paris.  10304  (roles). 

*  And.  2,  2  (v.  338),  G,  M. 

*  And.  4,  2  (v.  684),  D,  L,  Paris.  10304;  Haut.  2,  2  (v.  230),  M;  5,  5  (v. 
1045),  D;  Phorm.  i,  3  (v.  153),  M;  i,  4  (v.  179),  M;  3,  2  (v.  485),  M;  Hec, 
2,  2  (v.  243),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304;  4»  4  (v.  623),  L;  Ad.  5,  3  (v.  787),  G. 

*  Rh.  Mus.  XLVII,  p.  638. 


122 


John  Calvin  Watson 


names  to  the  figures  went  on  independently  in  the  several  mss.,  precisely 
as  we  see  it  in  C,  F,  O,  P.  This  might  account  for  the  differences  in 
the  several  mss.,  for  in  the  places  under  examination  no  two  of  them 
agree  very  closely  in  the  order  of  names.*  A  closer  scrutiny  shows 
insuperable  objections.  Such  a  theory  would  require  the  belief  that 
there  were  stages  in  the  adaptation  of  the  names  to  the  figures,  and 
that  the  miniatures  were  lost  when  the  work  was  but  half  completed ; 
that  to  figures  difficult  to  identify,  names  were  assigned  more  readily 
than  to  those  which  cannot  be  confused;  or  that  egregious  blunders 
were  made  in  the  identification  of  figures.*  If  the  theory  were  correct, 
it  would  be  inconceivable  that  the  mss.  of  this  family  should  agree  in 
only  two  scenes  in  giving  the  names  in  an  order  appropriate  to  the 
unusual  collocation  of  figures ;'  it  would  be  equally  impossible  that  in  a 
third  place  they  should  agree  in  an  order  entirely  unsuited  to  the  normal 
collocation.* 

For  these  reasons  such  a  theory  seems  utterly  untenable.  In  contrast 
with  it,  the  hypothesis  that  the  change  was  from  the  real  or  the  supposed 
order  of  figures  to,  or  in  the  direction  of  the  normal  order,  leads  to  an 
archetype,  finds  in  the  analogy  of  regular  headings  the  grounds  which 
suggested  changes,  and  discovers  the  principles  according  to  which  the 
changes  were  made. 

In  a  few  places  where  headings  in  mss.  of  this  family  have  the  normal 
order  of  names,  the  r61es  preserve  evidence  that  changes  have  been 
made.  Before  And,  2,  i  (v.  301)  the  repetition  of  adulescens  with 
the  name  of  Famphilus  in  D  is  easily  explained,  if  both  the  name  and 
the  role  have  been  transferred  to  this  position  from  the  last  place  on 
the  right,  the  position  which  the  figure  of  Famphilus  occupies  in  the 
miniatures.  Similarly  the  omission  of  a  numeral  in  D,  Fans.  10304 
before  And,  2,  2  (v.  338)  is  probably  due  to  a  change  in  the  position 
given  the  names  of  the  young  men,  the  earlier  order  being  still  preserved 
in  G.    Another  instance  of  the  repetition  of  the  role  adulescens  is  found 


*  The  MSS.  may  be  divided  into  two  groups,  for  D,  L,  Paris.  10304  are  several 
times  opposed  to  G,  M. 

*  Among  the  places  where  the  order  of  names  is  inexplicable  by  such  a  theory  are 
And,  3,  1  (v.  459);   5,  4  (v.  904);  Phorm.  2,  4  (v.  441). 

»  Ad.  3,  4  (v.  447);   4,  2  (v.  540). 

*  ^^.5,2  (v.  776). 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


123 


in  G,  M,  before  And,  4,  2  (v.  684).^  This  alone  indicates  that  the 
archetype  of  the  family  named  the  young  men  in  the  reverse  of  the 
usual  order,  the  original  assignment  being  still  found  in  D,  L,  Faris. 
10304.  The  omission  of  a  numeral  in  D  before  Haut,  2,  2  (v.  230) 
points  to  an  order  of  names  in  the  archetype  like  that  transmitted  in  M. 
Evidence  of  the  same  nature  in  the  headings  preserved  in  D,  M  before 
Eun,  4,  3  (v.  643)  points  to  an  arrangement  of  names  in  the  archetype 
like  that  in  G.  Finally  the  omission  of  a  numeral  in  D,  M  before  Eun, 
4,  4  (v.  668)  seems  to  show  that  the  order  of  names  assigned  the  two 
ancillae  was  reversed  in  the  archetype.^ 

In  these  six  places  the  roles  indicate  that  the  archetype  of  the  family 
had  an  unusual  order  of  names,  which,  in  the  process  of  transmission, 
has  been  reduced  to  the  normal  arrangement.  In  four  of  them  evidence 
from  this  source  leads  to  an  order  of  names  still  preserved  in  one  or 
more  of  the  members  of  this  family.* 

In  two  scenes  the  position  given  mute  characters  is  all  but  decisive 
evidence  that  the  normal  headings  at  these  places  are  due  to  changes  in 
the  order  of  names.  Before  Eun,  4,  7  (v.  771)  the  five  mss.  of  the 
8  family  have  the  speakers  named  in  the  regular  order,  except  that  in 
D,  L,  Sanga  is  omitted.  In  all  of  them  except  G,  mute  characters  are 
named,  and  in  every  instance  this  is  in  the  middle  of  the  heading  on 
the  extreme  right  of  the  names  of  the  attacking  party.  The  headings, 
therefore,  agree  with  the  miniatures  so  closely  in  this  respect  as  to  pre- 
clude the  thought  of  chance.  Moreover,  it  is  possible  to  determine  the 
original  order  with  reasonable  certainty.  It  is  probably  no  accident 
that  the  names  of  Syrus  and  Sanga  are  omitted  in  D,  L.*    Since  their 


*  The  heading  in  G,  which  Umpfenbach  gives  as  defective,  is  in  fact  complete 
and  resembles  that  found  in  M. 

'  The  numeral  is  omitted  also  in  And.  2,  2,  (v.  338),  G;  Phorm.  i,  4  (v.  179), 
G;  Ad.  4,  3  (v.  592),  M.  The  role  is  repeated  in  And.  4,  i  (v.  625),  G;  Eun, 
3,  5  (v.  549),  M.  One  or  two  of  these,  and  especially  the  last,  may  give  evidence 
that  a  normal  order  of  names  was  adapted  to  the  order,  or  the  supposed  order  of 
figures,  but  the  headings  transmitted  in  G,  M  have  too  many  variations  to  give  very 
satisfactory  evidence. 

'  Evidence  from  this  source  is  scanty,  because  it  is  restricted  to  scenes  in  which 
two  characters  of  the  same  role  participate,  and  because  in  about  half  of  the  headings 
in  G,  M,  and  in  nearly  all  of  those  in  L,  the  roles  are  omitted. 

*  Cf.  p.  117,  n.  I.     According  to  P.  Wessner,  Praef.  to  his  edition  of  Donatus, 


124 


John  Calvin  Watson 


' 


figures  are  first  on  the  left  in  the  miniatures,  the  omission  of  their  names 
was  probably  the  device  of  a  copyist  to  restore  the  name  of  Thraso,  the 
first  speaker,  to  its  usual  position.  If  the  first  figure  was  named  Syrus, 
the  sixth  was  necessarily  given  the  name  of  Gnatho.  In  the  headings 
Donax  is  named  in  this  place.  An  interchange  of  position  between 
these  two  names  will  give  the  exact  order  of  the  last  four  figures  of  the 
attacking  party  as  interpreted  by  Wieseler.  There  is  no  reason,  there- 
fore, to  doubt  that  the  headings  at  this  place  have  suffered  changes  in 
the  order  of  names,  and  that  the  order  was  formerly  that  of  the  figures 
in  the  miniatures.^  In  interpreting  the  intent  of  the  artist,  the  person 
who  created  the  headings  reached  the  same  conclusion  as  Wieseler. 

The  second  scene  is  Fhorm,  2,  3  (v.  348),  where  the  heading  in  L  is 
as  follows : 

DEMIPHO  HEGIO  CRITO  CRATINVS  GETA  PHORMIO 

The  rest  of  the  mss.  of  this  femily  omit  the  names  of  the  three  advocaH, 
who  are  mute  characters  for  this  scene.  The  normal  order  of  speakers 
in  L  must  be  due  to  changes,  for  D,  M  still  have  Phormio  and  Geta 
named  in  the  relative  order  of  their  figures  in  the  pictures.  Moreover, 
in  L,  as  in  A,  the  advocati,  though  in  a  somewhat  different  order,  follow 
immediately  after  the  name  of  Demipho.  This  similarity,  together  with 
the  evidence  of  D,  M,  makes  it  probable  that  the  archetype  of  this 
family  had  the  names,  both  of  the  speaking  characters  and  of  the  advo- 
cati,  in  exact  accord  either  with  the  collocation  of  figures,  or  with  the 
order  of  names  transmitted  in  A. 

The  evidence  from  these  various  sources  leads  to  the  conclusion  that 
in  nearly  every  scene  where  the  8  codices  are  at  variance,  the  unusual 
Older  of  names  is  either  that  which  existed  in  the  archetype,  or  it  has 
arisen  from  it.  In  such  places  a  normal  order  of  names,  or  one  in  any 
degree  approaching  it,  is  the  result  of  changes  due  to  the  analogy  of 
headings  with  the  usual  arrangement.  Of  the  thirty-one  scenes,  there- 
fore, where  a  comparison  of  the  varying  order  of  names  with  the  collo- 
cation of  figures  is  possible,  in  twenty-seven  the  original  order  of  names 


Vol.  I,  p.  xlix,  the  name  of  Sanga  is  omitted  also  in  a  heading  preserved  in  one  of 
the  MSS.  which  contain  the  commentary. 

*  On  the  r61e  lorarius  at  this  place  in  D,  M  see  p.  132. 


il 


' 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


125 


cither  reproduced  the  order  of  figures,  or  was  intended  to  do  so.  This 
conclusion  is  not  weakened  by  the  seventeen  scenes  where  the  order  of 
figures  is  unusual,  but  no  variations  occur  in  the  order  of  names.  In 
four  of  these  any  comparison  is  precluded  by  differences  in  the  division 
of  scenes.^  In  two  the  headings,  without  exception,  give  the  collocation 
of  figures.*  In  And,  2,  i  (v.  301)  the  roles  in  D  give  evidence  that 
the  original  heading  had  the  names  in  the  order  of  the  figures.  In 
Eun,  4,  7  (v.  771)  the  position  of  mute  characters  in  the  headings  is 
inexplicable  upon  any  other  theory.  In  seven  scenes  any  error  in 
assigning  names  to  figures  which  might  easily  be  confused  would  result 
in  the  normal  order.'  Out  of  thirty-four  scenes,  therefore,  but  two 
remain  in  which  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  reduction  of  the 
names  to  the  normal  order  has  left  no  traces  of  the  change.* 

In  the  Bembinus  fourteen  scenes  in  which  the  collocation  is  unusual 
have  the  usual  arrangement  of  names.  It  is  not  necessary  to  hold  that 
the  headings  in  all  of  these  places  do  not  have  the  original  order  of 
names,  for  in  six  an  error  in  assignment  would  have  given  the  order 
transmitted  in  A.*  In  the  remaining  eight  scenes,  according  to  the 
theory  advanced  in  this  paper,  changes  have  been  made.  The  headings 
are  so  regular  in  every  way  that  not  more  than  one  or  two  preserve  any 
evidence  of  such  changes.  Reference  has  been  made  to  Haut,  4,  i 
(v.  614),  where  the  Bembinus  alone  gives  a  name  for  the  nutrix^ 
Since  she  is  nowhere  named  in  the  play,  this  designation  was  wholly 
arbitrary.  It  gives  no  direct  evidence  that  the  order  of  names  at  this 
place  has  been  changed,  but  it  is  improbable  that  a  copyist  who  would 
venture  to  supply  a  name  unwarranted  by  the  text  would  hesitate  to 
reduce  the  names  to  the  normal  order. 

Before  Ad,  3,  4  (v.  447)  an  almost  certain  trace  of  a  change  in  order 
remains.    Though  two  senes  are  active  in  the  scene,  and  according  to 

>  Haut.  4,  7  (v.  829) ;    Eun.  5,  9  (v.  1049) »    Phorm.  5,  3  (v.  784) ;    Ad.  5,  9 

(v.958)- 

«  Ad.  3,  4  (v.  447);  4,  2  (v.  540). 

»  And.  3, 4  (v.  580) ;   5,  3  (v.  872) ;  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242) ;  Phorm.  4,  5  (v.  713); 

Hec.  3,  4  (v.  415);  Ad.  2,^  (v.  299);   5,  7  (v.  899). 

*  And.  2,  5  (v.  412);  Phorm.  5,  8  (v.  894). 

»  Eun.  3,  5  (v.  549) ;  P^rm.  4,  3  (v.  606) ;  4,  5  (v.  713) ;  Hec.  3,  4  (v.  415) ; 
Ad,  3,  2  (v.  299);  5,  7  (v.  899). 

•  Seep.  112. 


126 


John  Calvin  Watson 


the  usual  practice  are  named  together  in  the  heading,  the  r61e  of  the 
first  is  in  the  singular.  This  is  surely  no  mere  coincidence.  In  31 
scenes  A  agrees  with  the  miniatures  in  having  characters  of  the  same 
role  in  contiguous  positions.  In  the  headings  of  all  of  these  the  role  is 
written  in  the  plural,  and  is  followed  by  11  or  in.  In  only  three  places 
are  the  figures  of  such  characters  separated  in  the  pictures.  In  A  they 
are  named  together  as  usual,  and  it  is  in  one  of  these  that  the  role  is 
found  in  the  singular.  This  points  in  all  probability  to  a  heading  in 
which  the  two  senes  were  separated,  as  they  are,  not  only  in  the  minia- 
tures, but  also  in  the  headings  preserved  in  the  later  mss.  When  the 
names  were  reduced  to  the  normal  order,  the  numeral  11  was  substituted 
for  the  role  senex,  which  must  have  been  written  with  the  name  of 
Demea.  Through  oversight  the  singular  of  the  same  role  with  the 
name  of  Hegio  was  left  unchanged.^ 

In  nearly  every  instance  where  mute  characters  are  named  in  the 
Bembine  headings,  they  are  best  explained  as  due  to  the  figures  of  such 
characters  in  the  miniatures.  In  Phorm,  2,  3  (v.  348)  the  advocati 
occupy  the  same  position  relative  to  Demipho  that  they  do  in  the 
pictures.  It  is  true  that  according  to  the  distribution  of  scenes  in 
A  they  are  not  mute,  but  there  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  the 
copyist  omitted  a  heading  before  v.  441,  and  thereby  combined  the 
two  scenes.^  If  this  is  true,  the  naming  of  the  advocati  in  the  Bembinus 
is  accounted  for  by  the  miniatures. 

Hec,  5,  2  (v.  767).  In  both  the  Bembine  heading  and  the  minia- 
tures  the  speakers  are  in  the  regular  order.  The  nutrix,  a  mute 
character,  is  painted  first  on  the  left  in  the  pictures,  but  in  A  her 
role  is  last  on  the  right.  The  recognition  of  her  presence  on  the 
Stage  is  more  noteworthy,  because  neither  the  heading  nor  the  minia- 
tures contain  a  hint  of  the  two  anciliae  of  Bacchis,  though  these  remain 
on  the  stage  much  longer  than  does  the  nutrix.  The  agreement  of  the 
heading  with  the  miniatures  in  the  number  of  characters  can  hardly  be 
due  to  chance.     The  original  order  of  names  was  probably  in  accord 


*  The  six  scenes  in  which  the  order  of  names  was  altered  without  leaving  any 
traces  of  the  change  are  Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723);  Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643),-  4,  4  (v.  668); 
4.  7  (v.  771);  Phorm,  5,  8  (v.  894);  Ad,  4,  2  (v.  540). 

*  See  p.  155,  n.  i. 


: 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  127 

with  the  collocation  of  figures,  but  the  role  nutrix  was  displaced  in  order 
to  give  the  name  of  the  first  speaker  its  usual  position. 

Ad.  2,  I  (v.  155).  For  the  illustration  the  artist  chose  the  opening 
of  the  scene.^  Parmeno,  who  is  probably  a  mute  character,^  is  shown 
first  on  the  left  in  altercation  with  Sannio.  Between  Aeschinus,  the 
second  speaker,  who  is  painted  last  on  the  right,  and  Sannio,  the  second 
figure,  the  meretrix  is  represented.  Sannio  has  seized  her  right  wrist, 
while  Aeschinus  has  his  right  hand  on  her  shoulder.  This  order  of 
characters  is  preserved  in  A,  except  that  Parmeno  is  named  last  instead 
of  first.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  according  to  the  usual  practice, 
his  name  was  displaced,  in  order  to  give  Sannio  the  first  position.  The 
role  of  the  meretrix,  to  whom  the  name  of  Bacchis  has  been  arbitrarily 
assigned,  was  not  disturbed,  because  it  did  not  stand  before  the  name  of 
the  first  speaker.  In  naming  her  between  Sannio  and  Aeschinus,  the 
Bembinus  preserves  a  trace  of  the  struggle  pictured  in  the  miniatures. 

^^'  Zi  Z  (v.  355).  The  name  of  Dromo  in  the  Bembine  heading  at 
this  place  and  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Stephanio  have  never  been 
satisfactorily  explained.  Spengel  suggested  that  Dromo  is  named 
because  a  cocus  is  not  an  ordinary  attendant  on  the  stage.*  The 
objection   to   this,   as   Dziatzko  had  pointed  out,*  is  that  Stephanio 


*  The  miniature  at  this  place  in  the  Parisinus,  considerably  reduced  in  size,  is 
given  in  a  reproduction  by  Fabia  in  his  edition  of  the  Adelphoe^  1892,  p.  94. 

*  The  assignment  of  the  words  Em  serva;  omitte  mulierem  in  v.  18  is  somewhat 
in  doubt.  In  A  the  first  two  are  given  to  Aeschinus,  the  second  two  to  Parmeno. 
The  first  two  are  definitely  assigned  to  Aeschinus  by  Donatus.  All  the  four  words 
are  given  to  Aeschinus  by  C,  E,  G,  P,  by  a  corrector  in  D,  and  probably  by  the 
first  hand  in  L,  but  to  Parmeno  by  D,  F  (in  D  the  nota  B  was  doubtless  an  error  for 
P),  and  by  later  hands  in  C,  E,  L,  P.  In  addition  to  the  weight  of  manuscript 
evidence,  the  sense  requires  that  the  words  em  serva  be  spoken  by  Aeschinus.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  Parmeno  is  directed  to  watch  for  a  nod  from  Aeschinus  as  his 
warrant  for  striking  the  leno^  the  last  two  words  also  seem  more  appropriate  if  they 
are  spoken  by  Aeschinus.  With  the  only  possible  assignment  by  which  Parmeno 
can  be  a  speaker,  and  with  a  nota  personae  for  Parmeno  in  the  heading,  the  Bem- 
binus represents  one  ancient  interpretation.  This  is  accepted  by  Umpfenbach 
and  Kauer.  Another  interpretation,  probably  equally  ancient,  and  usually  fol- 
lowed by  modern  editors,  is  preserved  in  mss.  which  leave  Parmeno  a  mute 
character.    The  third  interpretation  seems  relatively  late. 

'  Sitzungsber.  d.  bayr.  Akad.  phil.-hist.  Cl.y  1883,  II,  p.  269. 

*  Ed.  Adelphoe^  1881,  KriL-Exeg.  Anh.,  v.  380,  p.  103. 


128 


John  Calvin  Watson 


has  an  equal  right  to  appear,  for  the  two  slaves  are  addressed  by  Syms 
in  vv.  376  and  380  in  about  the  same  terms.  Spengel  gave  as  a  second 
reason  that  Dromo's  name  at  this  place  is  due  to  his  being  a  speaker 
later  in  the  play.  This  explanation  must  be  rejected,  first,  because  it  is 
doubtful  whether  the  author  of  the  headings  assigned  the  name  Dromo 
to  the  first  speaker  in  v.  776*;  secondly,  because  in  the  headings  before 
the  verse  named  the  role  puer^  not  cocus,  is  used.  There  is  no  evidence, 
therefore,  to  show  that  the  characters  in  the  two  places  were  regarded 
as  identical.  Unable  to  explain  why  Dromo  is  named  in  the  Bembine 
heading  before  v.  355,  while  Stephanio  is  passed  over  in  silence,  Dziatzko 
questioned  the  authority  of  the  scene-headings.  With  the  aid  of  the 
pictures,  the  inconsistency  is  easily  accounted  for.  In  v.  364,  at  which 
place  all  the  later  mss.  institute  a  new  scene,  the  miniatures  have  the 
figure  of  Dromo,  but  have  none  of  Stephanio.'  Dromo  is  shown  in  the 
house  on  the  left,  engaged,  as  the  dialogue  demands,  in  cleaning  fish. 
The  artist,  in  harmony  with  his  practice  elsewhere,  omitted  Stephanio 
because  he  was  unable,  relying  on  the  text  alone,  to  represent  him  in 
some  active  capacity.  The  Bembine  heading,  in  omitting  the  name  of 
one  character  and  giving  the  name  of  the  other,  merely  follows  the 
authority  of  the  miniatures. 

In  two  scenes  the  Bembine  headings  name  mute  characters  whose 
figures  do  not  appear  in  the  illustrations.*  In  these  places  it  is  neces- 
sary to  suppose  either  that  the  miniatures  have  suffered  alterations,  or 
that  names  have  been  inserted  in  the  headings  by  later  hands.  Since 
there  is  no  evidence  of  the  latter,  these  places  will  be  considered  in 
connection  with  the  integrity  of  the  miniatures. 

With  the  exception  of  the  two  places  just  mentioned,  the  names  of 
mute  characters  both  in  A  and  in  the  I  family  are  found  only  in  scenes 
where  the  pictures  contain  their  figures.*     It  is  not  true  conversely  that 

'  Cf.  p.  118,  n  I. 

*  Facsimiles  of  the  miniatures  at  this  place  in  the  Parisinus  and  the  Ambrosianus 
are  given  by  E.  Chatelain,  Paiecfgr.  des  class,  lat.^  PI.  VII  and  VIII. 

=»  Phorm.  4,  2  (v.  591);  Ad,  2,  3  (v.  254).    On  these  see  p.  160  f. 

♦  This  is  not  true  of  places  where  speaking  characters,  because  of  late  changes  in 
scene -division,  have  been  made  mute  for  particular  scenes.  Examples  are  Haut.  2,  2 
(v.  230),  E;  4,  6  (v.  80s),  L;  Phorm,  i,  i  (v.  35),  L,  M;  Hec,  5,  i  (v.  727),  M. 
And.  5,  5  (v.  957),  D,  L,  M,  V,  is  probably  not  to  be  included  with  these  places. 
On  this  see  p.  147  If. 


'''IR- 


i 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  129 

the  names  of  such  characters  are  given  wherever  their  figures  are  painted. 
It  was  upon  these  places,  quite  as  much  as  upon  differences  in  scene- 
division,  that  Schlee  denied  #ie  existence  of  any  relationship  between 
the  Bembine  headings  and  the  miniatures.^  There  is  indeed  no  direct 
evidence  that  the  copyist  of  A  omitted  any  names  of  mute  characters, 
but  there  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  this  has  happened  several  times  in 
the  S  family .2  That  such  names  were  ever  arbitrarily  inserted  in  the 
headings,  there  is  very  little  reason  to  believe.  The  tendency  was  rather 
to  omit  names  already  given.  It  is  very  doubtful,  therefore,  whether 
any  single  manuscript  contains  all  the  names  of  mute  characters  written 
in  the  original  headings.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  suppose  that 
the  author  of  the  headings  assigned  a  name,  or  even  a  role,  to  every 
figure  of  a  mute  character  in  the  miniatures.  In  several  instances  such 
characters  are  nowhere  named  in  the  text.'  In  a  few  places  some  of 
the  headings  do  not  have  the  names  of  speakers  to  whom  only  a  few  un- 
important words  are  assigned.  This  is  certain  evidence  either  that  the 
author  of  the  headings  failed  to  assign  names  to  all  the  figures,  or  that 
some  of  the  names,  originally  given  in  the  headings,  have  been  omitted 
by  copyists.  Both  may  have  been  true,  but  the  omission  was  probably 
much  more  frequent  than  the  failure  to  name  speaking  characters.*  If 
these  have  sometimes  been  omitted,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  same 
thing  has  happened  in  the  case  of  mute  characters.  In  spite  of  the 
fact,  therefore,  that  no  speakers  are  omitted  in  the  Bembine  headings, 
the  tendency  to  omit  the  names  of  mute  or  unimportant  characters,  is  so 
well  illustrated  in  the  later  mss.  that  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that 
the  Bembinus  was  no  exception. 

This  conclusion  is  necessary  in  view  of  the  relationship  existing 
between  the  headings  preserved  in  the  different  classes  of  mss.  Not- 
withstanding certain  differences  in  these,*  they  have  without  question 
come  down  from  a  common  original.     This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 

'  Scholia  Terentiana,  P*  7  ^' 

«  Cf.  And.  5,  5  (v.  957),  G,  Paris.  10304;  Eun.  4,  7  (v.  771),  G;  Phorvi.  2,  3 
(v.  348),  D,  M,  Paris.  10304;  Ad.  2,  i  (v.  155),  Paris.  10304. 

=»  And.  I,  I  (v.  28),  two  slaves;  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  slave-girl;  Hec.  3,  4 
(v.  415),  slave;   5,  2  (v.  767),  nutrix;  Ad.  2,  i  (v.  155),  meretrix. 

*  See  p.  117,  n. 

*  The  most  important  of  these  will  be  noticed  on  p.  165  ff. 


I30 


John  Calvin  Watson 


|iiiiiii| 


r 


in  the  best  representatives  of  each  class  they  have  the  same  form,^  the 
same  inaccuracy  in  the  use  of  certain  roles,^  and  occasionally  in  A,  8 
the  same  unusual  order  of  names  arising,  from  errors  in  identifying  the 
figures.*  Any  differences  must  be  regarded  as  due  to  changes  made 
either  by  design  or  by  accident  in  the'process  of  transmission.  Since, 
therefore,  the  headings  have  a  common  origin,  the  name  of  a  mute 
character,  even  in  a  single  heading,  is  strong  evidence  that  it  was  given 
in  the  original.  This  warrants  the  conclusion  that  in  at  least  six  places 
where  the  figures  of  mute  characters  appear,  they  were  assigned  either 
names  or  roles,  or  both,  by  the  author  of  the  headings.  For  the 
remaining  eight  places  the  evidence  is  negative.  The  loss  of  names  in 
some  places  in  all  but  one  or  two  mss.,  suggests  that  in  other  places  such 
names  may  have  perished  altogether.  Whatever  the  truth  may  be,  it  is 
submitted  that,  even  apart  from  other  evidence,  the  omission  of  the 
names  of  mute  characters  in  scenes  where  their  figures  are  shown,  is  no 
sufficient  test  of  the  relationship  existing  between  the  headings  and  the 
miniatures. 

The  Source  of  the  Roles 

This  concludes  the  comparison  of  the  miniatures  and  the  scene- 
headings  with  reference  to  the  number  of  characters  they  contain,  and 
the  order  in  which  these  are  arranged.  Before  we  pass  to  the  subject 
of  scene-division,  the  roles,  to  which  reference  has  several  times  been 
made,  require  some  attention.  In  selecting  these  the  author  of  the 
headings  did  not  rely  upon  the  text  alone,  but  used  the  evidence  also 
of  the  pictures.  It  is  true  that  in  the  majority  of  scenes  the  appella- 
tions found  with  the  names  are  appropriate  to  the  text  of  the  several 
plays,  but  for  characters  of  most  frequent  occurrence,  as  seneSy  servi^ 
adulescenteSy  even  if  the  text  had  been  wholly  disregarded,  no  other 
roles  would  have  been  possible.  It  is  in  scenes  where  the  roles  are 
either  inaccurate,  or  inexplicable  by  means  of  the  text,  that  the  influence 
of  the  miniatures  is  evident. 


I 


*  In  the  archetype  of  the  5  family  the  names  and  r3Ies  may  have  been  inverted  in 
order.    On  this  see  p.  165. 

•  Full  consideration  of  this  point  follows  at  once. 

'  These  places  are  Ilaut.  5,  5  (v.  1045),  A,  D,  (G);   Phorm.  3,  2  (v.  485),  A, 
M;  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776),  A,  D,  L,  M,  Paris.  10304.     On  these  see  p.  116  ff. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


131 


Inaccuracy  in  the  choice  of  roles  is  found  chiefly  in  scenes  which 
have  female  characters.  In  several  miniatures  the  identification  of 
such  characters  is  not  easy.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  in  the 
sixteen  scenes  where  married  women  are  on  the  stage,  they  are  never 
given  the  appellation  matrona,  though  they  are  so  designated  by  the 
poet  himself.^  In  mss.  of  every  class,  the  role,  so  far  as  it  is  preserved, 
is  mutter.  The  use  of  the  general  instead  of  the  specific  appellation  is 
best  explained  as  due  to  the  miniatures. 

The  same  inaccuracy  is  found  in  six  scenes  where  nurses  are  on  the 
stage.^  In  all  of  these  the  word  nutrix  is  found  in  the  text,  the  word 
anus  occurring  in  but  one.*  The  proper  designation  for  such  characters 
is  nutrix,  not  the  indefinite  anus.  Between  the  two  roles  the  Bembine 
headings  are  equally  divided.  In  mss.  of  the  y  family  four  headings 
have  nutrix,  one  has  anus,  while  one  has  both.*  In  the  Victorianus 
nutrix  is  once  used,  anus  appears  in  two  headings,  and  as  in  the  y  family 
one  heading  has  both.^  In  the  rest  of  the  mss.  of  the  8  family,  wherever 
the  role  is  preserved,  it  is  invariably  nutrix.^  This  inconsistency,  found 
in  all  classes  of  mss.,  is  probably  due  to  the  dependence  of  the  author  of 
the  headings  on  the  pictures  rather  than  on  the  text. 

The  appellation  anus,  as  used  above,  is  open  also  to  the  objection 
that  it  does  not  distinguish  a  nurse  from  such  a  character  as  Syra  in  the 
first  two  scenes  of  the  Hecyra.  The  proper  designation  of  Syra  is  not 
very  clear.  In  all  classes  of  mss.  the  role  anus  is  assigned  to  her,  while 
in  C,  D,  and  apparently  in  the  original  of  Paris.  10304,  she  is  also  called 
a  lena.  From  the  evidence  of  the  text  the  former  is  at  least  permissible, 
but  the  propriety  of  assigning  to  her  the  role  lena  is  in  doubt.     Since  it 


^  Eun.  Prol.  v.  37. 

«  Haut.  4,  I  (v.  614);  Eun,  5,  3  (v.  910);  Phorm,  5,  i  (v.  728);  Hec,  5,  2 
(v.  767);  Ad.  3,  I  (v.  288);   3,  2  (v.  299). 

^  Phorm.  5,  I,  5  (v.  732).  The  word  nutrix  is  not  found  in  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299), 
but  the  two  scenes  in  this  play  form  a  single  passage. 

*  Haut,  4,  I  (v.  614).  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  role  nutrix  in  the 
original  heading  of  this  scene  has  been  displaced  in  the  Bembinus  by  the  arbitrary 
name  Canthara. 

*  In  Hec.  5,  2  (v.  767)  no  headings  are  found  because  of  differences  in  scene- 
division.     In  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299)  the  roles  are  omitted. 

*  This  is  true  of  five  scenes  in  Paris.  10304. 


132 


John  Calvin  Watson 


is  not  found  in  the  Bembinus,  its  origin  is  a  question  for  the  solution  of 
which  the  data  are  insufficient 

Another  instance  of  inaccuracy  in  the  use  of  the  r61es  is  the  assign- 
ment of  corns  to  Dromo  in  the  Bembine  heading  before  Ad,  3,  3 
(v.  355).  Dziatzko  insisted  that  this  character  is  not  a  cook,  but  at 
most  is  only  a  kitchen-boy.*  The  idle  is  easily  accounted  for  by  means 
of  the  miniatures,  for  in  these  Dromo  is  shown  engaged  in  cleaning  fish. 

In  three  places  r61es  are  used  for  which  no  explanation  can  be  found 
in  the  text  of  the  plays.  The  appellation  assigned  to  Antiphila  in  the 
original  headings  before  HauL  2,  4  (v.  381),  is  in  doubt.  In  the  Bem- 
binus, by  means  of  a  numeral,  she  is  classed  with  Bacchis  as  a  meretrix. 
In  the  later  mss-  she  is  given  the  r61e  mulier^  which  elsewhere  is  reserved 
for  married  women.  Both  are  wrong,  for  it  is  certain  from  the  context 
that  virgo  is  the  proper  appellation. 

Before  Eun,  4,  7  (v.  771)  the  r61e  hrarius,  for  which  no  justification 
whatever  exists  in  the  dialogue,  is  of  the  greatest  importance  in  deter- 
mining the  source  of  the  roles.  In  D,  M,  as  well  as  in  the  illustrated 
MSS.,  it  must  be  due  to  the  object  carried  by  the  fifth  figiure  in  the  party 
of  Thraso.  In  D,  as  in  C,  it  is  significant  that  the  role  is  found  with 
the  name  of  Simalio,  whose  figure  is  fifth  in  the  miniatures.*  In  M,  as 
in  F,  P,  it  is  given  with  the  name  of  Donax,  the  error  in  all  of  these 
being  due,  probably,  to  changes  in  the  order  of  names.  As  early,  there- 
fore, as  the  origin  of  the  scene-headings,  the  fifth  figure,  from  the  object 
he  is  shown  carrying  in  his  hand,  was  believed  to  represent  the  lorarius 
of  Thraso. 

Before  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776)  the  r61e  puer^  transmitted  with  the  name 
Dromo  in  all  classes  of  mss.,  is  suggested  neither  by  the  scene,  nor  by 
anything  in  the  play.  It  is  not  found  elsewhere  m  the  headings.  With 
little  doubt  the  first  speaker  in  this  scene,  quite  as  much  as  Syrus,  is  a 
tjrpical  slave.  Such  is  his  appearance  in  the  miniatures.  Since  the 
author  of  the  headings,  according  to  the  evidence  presented  above,* 
confused  the  figures  of  the  slaves,  it  is  obvious  that  he  did  not  under- 
stand why  the  second  is  shown  holding  the  end  of  Demea*s  pallium. 


*  Ed.  Adelpkoe,  1881,  Krit,-Ex€g.  AnA.,  v.  380,  p.  103. 

*  In  F,  the  figure  of  Simalio  is  fourth.     See  p.  88. 
'  See  p.  118. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  133 

Believing  this  character  to  be  the  first  speaker,  h^  found  the  evidence 
with  reference  to  the  proper  role  wholly  negative.  Adopting  his  usual 
expedient  of  interpreting  the  pictures,  he  seems  to  have  regarded  the 
second  figure  as  the  personal  attendant  of  Demea,  and  to  have  chosen 
the  designation///^/-  in  order  to  distinguish  him  from  the  ordinary  slave. 

The  Distribution  of  the  Scene-Headings  and  the  Miniatures 

In  the  discussion  thus  far,  all  places  have  been  disregarded  in  which 
any  comparison  of  the  scene-headings  with  the  miniatures  is  precluded 
by  diiferences  in  their  distribution.  These  places  now  require  some 
notice.  If  the  headings  originated  in  the  miniatures,  there  must 
obviously  have  been  a  time  when  their  distribution  was  identical,  and 
the  variations  which  are  found  at  26  places  in  the  mss.  are  to  be 
explained  as  due  to  changes,  either  designed  or  accidental,  made  by 
copyists.  These  variations  are  doubtless  the  chief  basis  for  the  assump- 
tion that  in  origin,  at  least,  the  miniatures  and  the  headings  are  in  no 
way  connected.  To  Leo  and  Schlee,  who  argued  against  the  existence 
of  any  relationship  between  the  two,  differences  in  the  division  of 
scenes  seemed  to  be  decisive  evidence.^  Neither  of  these  scholars 
recognized  the  possibility  of  changes  in  this  respect,  and  in  discussions 
about  the  principles  followed  in  the  distribution  of  scenes,  the  tradition 
of  the  MSS.  has  usually  been  accepted  without  question.^  While  it  is 
impossible  to  find  direct  evidence  at  every  place  where  variations  occur, 
enough  is  preserved,  it  is  believed,  to  indicate  that  at  one  time  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  headings  and  the  miniatures  was  identical. 

The  differences  between  the  mss.  in  scene-division  are  indeed  impor- 
tant, but  they  have  been  accorded  undue  weight.  No  one,  apparently, 
has  remarked  the  absolute  agreement  of  all  classes  of  mss.  in  124  places, 
or  nearly  Z^i  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  places  where  either  headings 

*  For  the  references  see  p.  108  f. 

*  See  Dziatzko's  2d  edition  of  the  Phormio,  p.  32  f.,  retained  essentially  unchanged 
in  Hauler's  revision,  p.  47  f.;  Dziatzko's  edition  of  the  Adelphoe,  1881,  on  v.  958, 
retained  by  Kauer  in  his  revision,  1903.  See  also  Hauler  in  the  Krit.  Anh.  on 
Phorm,  2,  4  (v.  441 ) .  That  changes  have  been  made  in  scene-division  was  suggested 
by  Spengel,  Sitzungsber.  d.  bayr.  Akad.,  phil.-hist.  CL,  1883,  II,  p.  284.  See  also 
critical  notes  by  Spengel  and  Fairclough  in  their  editions  of  the  Andria,  on  v.  965, 
and  by  Dziatzko,  Tauchnitz  edition  of  the  plays,  1884,  on  Ad.  924. 


J^r 


John  Calvin  Watsan 


or  miniatures  are  found.  In  view  of  this  close  agreement,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  believe  that  the  distribution  was  made  by  two  persons  working 
independently. 

Since  the  miniatures  and  the  headings  are  usually  found  at  the  same 
places,  it  is  natural  that  they  should  betray  the  same  principles  of  distri- 
bution. In  the  illustrated  mss.  the  text  is  divided  in  such  a  way  that, 
with  probably  but  two  exceptions,*  no  scene  contains  characters  who 
are  not  on  the  stage  at  the  same  time.  It  is  this  principle  that  makes 
it  possible  for  the  miniatures  to  present  all  the  speaking  characters 
active  in  each  scene,  and  to  give  an  appropriate  picture  of  the  action 
at  the  most  important  or  dramatic  moment.  It  is  manifest  that  the 
artist  could  property  have  adopted  no  other  principle  of  distribution. 
Except  in  the  same  two  places  as  in  the  illustrated  mss.,  and  in  a  third 
place  where  the  variation  is  easily  explained,*  the  headings  follow  the 
same  principle.  The  fact  that  they  are  subject  to  restrictions  which  are 
necessary  in  the  miniatures,  points  to  their  origin  in  illustrated  mss. 

The  adoption  of  the  principle  of  distribution  described  above  did  not 
determine  the  position  of  the  miniatures,  for  the  artist  might  have 
painted  these  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  passages  selected  for  illus- 
tration. If  he  seems  frequently  to  have  done  so,  it  is  only  because  in 
many  places  the  passages,  to  which  the  illustrations  refer,  closely  follow 
a  change  of  characters.  His  second  principle,  in  short,  was  that  the 
text  should  be  divided  only  at  points  where  characters  enter  or  leave 
the  stage.  The  distribution  of  the  headings  was  made  according  to 
precisely  the  same  principle.  In  all  classes  of  mss.  alike  new  scenes 
almost  invariably  begin  with  the  words  of  the  first  speaker  after  the 
change  of  characters.  That  this  is  no  mere  coincidence  is  shown  by 
scenes  where  the  text  is  divided  at  some  unusual  point.  In  four  places 
of  this  nature  new  scenes  are  found  in  only  a  part  of  the  codices,*  so 
that  any  comparison  of  the  position  of  the  headings  with  that  of  the 
miniatures  is  impossible.     In  two  places,  however,  all  classes  of  mss. 


*  In  Haut.  4,  4,  21  (v.  743)  it  seems  probable  that  three  characters  enter  the 
house  o(  Menedemus  before  Dromo  is  called  out;  cf.  pp.  80  and  158  £.  The  second 
scene  is  Eun,  3,  2  (v.  454),  on  which  see  p.  71. 

*  Eun.  5,  8  (v.  1031);  cf.  p.  150!. 

a  Haut.  3,  3,  32  (v.  593),  F;  cf.  p.  139  f.;  5.  2.  27  (v.  980),  5;  cf.  p.  155  f.; 
Eun,  5,  4,  21  (v.  943),  7;   cf.  p.  150;  JViorm.  5,  3,  12  (v.  795),  A,  5;  cf.  p.  151  f. 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


135 


agree  in  a  peculiar  division  of  the  text.  In  each  place  the  first  speaker 
is  not  the  character  entering,  but  one  remaining  on  the  stage  from  the 
previous  scene.  Thus  at  And.  3,  3  (v.  533)  the  new  scene  includes 
the  entire  verse,  so  that  Simo  is  the  first  to  speak.  Properly  it  should 
begin  within  the  verse  with  the  first  words  of  Chremes.  This  exception 
to  the  rule  is  more  striking,  since  at  Ad,  i,  2  (v.  81),  under  circum- 
stances exactly  similar,  the  words  of  Demea  within  the  verse  rightly 
mark  the  beginning  of  the  new  scene.  The  second  place  to  which 
reference  was  made  is  Eun,  5,  3  (v.  910).  After  v.  909  Thais  and 
Chaerea  withdraw  from  the  stage,  but  Pythias  remains,  and,  until  the 
entrance  of  Chremes  with  Sostrata  in  v.  912,  is  the  only  character  on 
the  stage.  Her  words  are  relatively  unimportant,  and  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  purpose  for  which  Chremes  and  Sostrata  are  brought  upon 
the  stage.  The  codices  of  Terence  contain  no  parallels  to  the  division 
of  the  text  before  v.  910.^  The  practice  elsewhere  shows  that  the 
point  of  division  should  not  be  at  this  place,  but  within  v.  912.  Under 
conditions  precisely  similar,  no  headings  are  found  at  Phorm.  219,  but 


*  And.  I,  2  (v.  172)  would  be  a  parallel,  were  it  not  probable  that  Simo  enters  his 
house  after  v.  171,  leaving  the  stage  empty  for  a  moment.  If  he  does  so,  a  new 
scene  necessarily  begins  with  his  return.  That  he  leaves  the  stage  after  v.  171  is  the 
view  of  Wagner  and  Spengel.  That  he  remains  on  the  stage,  a  view  as  old  as  Dona- 
tus,  was  held  by  Bentley,  who  is  followed  by  most  recent  editors.  The  arguments  in 
favor  of  this  position  are  given  by  Fairclough  in  critical  and  exegetical  notes  on  w. 
171  and  173.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  approaching  wedding  is  announced 
by  Simo  to  the  members  of  his  family  before  the  end  of  the  first  scene.  Simo's 
language  in  v.  47  does  not  necessarily,  or  even  probably,  refer  to  any  one  except 
Sosia.  That  Davus  was  regarded  with  suspicion  by  Simo,  is  clear  from  v.  159  ff., 
but  Davus'  own  words  in  v.  211  f.  show  that  Simo  had  this  feeling  previous  to  his 
announcement  of  the  wedding.  Moreover,  several  circumstances  indicate  that 
the  announcement  was  made  after  the  first  scene.  When  in  v.  161  Simo  refers  to 
the  activity  of  Davus,  he  uses  the  future  tense.  Sosia's  duty,  as  described  in  v.  165  f., 
is  to  frighten  Davus  and  keep  watch  on  Pamphilus.  This  requires  that  Sosia  should 
be  brought  to  the  house  before  the  announcement,  for  Simo  aims  to  catch  Davus  and 
Pamphilus  off  their  guard  (cf .  vv.  180  ff .  and  360) .  It  is  certain  that  the  wedding  was 
not  announced  to  Pamphilus  until  after  v.  205  (cf.  vv.  227,  238  f.  and  253  ff.). 
If  Davus  knew  about  the  wedding  before  the  first  scene,  his  delay  in  attempting 
to  apprise  Pamphilus  of  it  is  strange.  For  these  reasons,  it  is  probable  that  Simo 
leaves  the  stage  after  v.  171.  If  this  is  true,  the  correct  reading  in  v.  171  is  sequor, 
as  given  by  Priscian,  and,  apparently,  by  C.  Modo  in  v.  173  refers  to  the  interval 
between  w.  171  and  172,  a  parallel  to  which  is  found  in  Haut.  563. 


136 


John  Calvin  Watson 


a  new  scene  rightly  begins  with  the  entrance  of  Demipho  at  v.  231. 
In  the  two  places,  therefore,  where  any  comparision  is  possible,  the 
miniatures  and  the  headings  alike  have  the  same  unusual  position. 
That  this  is  due  to  chance  is  inconceivable. 

Though  the  headings  and  the  miniatures,  with  rare  exceptions,  are 
found  only  at  places  where  changes  of  characters  occur,  it  is  not  true, 
conversely,  that  such  changes  are  always  the  occasion  of  new  scenes. 
In  all  families  of  mss.  alike,  places  are  disregarded  in  which  only  a  few 
verses  intervene  between  changes  of  characters.  The  shortest  scene 
occasioned  by  the  entrance  of  characters  has  six  verses ;  the  shortest 
caused  by  their  exit  has  seven  verses.  Disregarding  changes  which 
occur  within  these  limits,^  there  are  about  46  places  where  the  entrance 
of  some  characters  coincides  with  the  exit  of  others,  about  96  places 
where  the  only  change  is  the  entrance  of  additional  characters,  and 
about  42  places  where  the  change  consists  of  the  exit  of  part  of  the 
characters  active  on  the  stage.*  Since  these  three  classes  of  places 
exhibit  wide  variations  in  scene-division,  they  must  be  considered 
separately. 

In  the  46  places  where  the  entrance  of  some  characters  coincides 
with  the  exit  of  others,  the  text  is  regularly  divided  in  A,  8.  In  y,  E, 
division  is  found  in  all  of  these  except  one,  where  the  failure  to  divide 
can  easily  be  explained.? 

In  73  of  the  96  places  where  the  number  of  characters  on  the  stage 
is  increased  by  the  entrance  of  others,  the  text  is  divided  in  all  families 
of  MSS.  In  seventeen,  new  scenes  are  instituted  in  part  of  the  codices. 
The  failure  to  divide  the  text,  though  most  frequent  in  the  8  mss.,  is  not 
confined  to  any  family,  the  instances  of  such  failure  numbering  three 
each  in  y,  G,  M,  five  in  A,  six  each  in  L,  Paris.  10304,  seven  in  E,  and 
eleven  in  D.*    In  the  remaining  six  places  new  scenes  are  not  found  in 


*  Whether  these  limits  were  always  observed  may  well  be  doubted.    See  p.  157  ff. 

*  Since  the  points  at  which  characters  enter  or  leave  the  stage  are  sometimes  in 
doubt,  the  numbers  given  are  only  approximately  correct. 

*  ^^.  3.  5  (v-  5");  cf.  p.  156.     On  Haut.  4,  4,  21  (v.  743),  which  is  excluded 
by  the  limit  of  six  verses,  see  p.  158  f. 

*  All  places  where  variations  occur,  with  a  classification  of  the  MSS.  at  each,  are 
given  in  the  table  on  p.  140. 


Sce7ie-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


137 


/l 


any  manuscript.^  This  is  the  more  surprising,  since  in  nearly  all  of 
these  the  grounds  for  division  are  as  good  as  at  many  other  points 
where  codices  of  all  families  agree  in  having  it. 

Where  the  only  change  consists  in  the  exit  of  part  of  the  characters 
active  on  the  stage,  scene-division  is  not  the  rule,  but  the  exception. 
In  only  seven  of  the  42  places  of  this  nature  are  the  mss.  a  unit  in 
instituting  new  scenes.*  In  four  of  these  the  metrical  structure  re- 
mains the  same,  while  in  three  it  changes.  In  eight  instances  where 
characters  leave  the  stage,  the  mss.  are  at  variance  with  respect  to  divi- 
sion. In  these  also  the  failure  to  divide  the  text  is  peculiar  to  no  family 
of  codices,  the  instances  numbering  one  in  G,'  three  each  in  A,  D,  four 
in  Paris.  10304,  and  five  each  in  y,  E,  L,  M.  In  three  of  these  places 
the  metrical  structure  remains  the  same,  while  in  five  it  is  changed.  The 
remaining  27  passages  show  no  traces  of  division  preserved  in  any 
manuscript,  though  in  several  of  them  it  would  be  quite  as  appropriate 
for  new  scenes  to  begin  as  in  some  other  places  where  the  mss.  are  in 
accord  in  having  division.  In  four  of  them  the  metrical  structure 
changes  with  the  exit  of  characters,*  but  in  the  remaining  23  it  con- 
tinues unchanged. 

From  the  statistics  presented  above  it  is  evident  that  places  of  the 
third  class  are  in  striking  contrast  with  those  of  the  first,  and  usually 
with  those  of  the  second  class.  If  the  tradition  of  the  mss.  be  accepted, 
a  mere  exit  of  characters  was  insufficient  to  cause  scene-division,  but 
the  manner  in  which  this  was  determined  is  far  from  clear.  The  length 
of  the  passage  intervening  before  the  entrance  of  new  characters  was 
probably  one  element  in  the  decision.  Of  the  fifteen  scenes  set  off  in 
part  or  all  of  the  mss.  at  the  exit  of  characters,  only  five  have  fewer 


»  And.  4,  3,  7  (v.  722);  S,  2,  20  (v.  861);  Eun.  3,  3,  25  (v.  531);  Hec.  3,  2, 
l8  (v.  353);  4,  I,  7  (v.  522);  5,  3,  10  (v.  808).  On  And.  722,  see  p.  157.  On 
the  rest,  see  p.  160  f.  Haut.  3,  i,  li  (v.  420)  is  not  included,  because  it  is  possible 
that  Menedemus  is  on  the  stage  from  the  opening  of  the  scene. 

*  And.  2,  6  (v.  432);  4,  3  (v.  716);  Haut.  2,  i  (v.  213);  4,  2  (v.  668);  Eun, 
5»  3  (v-  910);   Phorm.  4,  4  (v.  682);   Hec.  2,  3  (v.  274). 

^  The  apparent  superiority  of  G  is  due  to  the  l6ss  of  two  passages  where  the  text 
is  not  divided  in  the  rest  of  the  codices  of  this  family. 

*  And.  3,  2,  44  (v.  524);  Hec.  3,  i,  47  (v.  327);  4,  i,  51  (v.  566);  Ad,  2,  I, 
42  (v.  196). 


138 


John  Calvin  Watson 


than  20  verses,  but  of  the  27  points  at  which  no  division  is  found,  only 
three  are  as  many  as  20  verses  before  the  entrance  of  new  characters. 
There  was  a  strong  tendency  also  to  divide  the  text  where  the  exit  of 
characters  is  immediately  followed  by  some  essential  turn  or  change  in 
the  progress  of  the  play.  Changes  of  this  nature  usually  coincide  with 
changes  in  the  metrical  structure  of  the  verse.  Since  in  eight  of  the 
fifteen  places  where  scene-division  is  found,  the  metrical  structure 
changes,  while  this  is  true  of  only  four  of  the  27  points  where  no  division 
is  found,  it  is  evident  that  the  content  of  the  several  passages  was  of 
influence  in  determining  the  question  of  division.  Spengel's  theory 
that  at  the  exit  of  characters  new  scenes  properly  begin  only  when  the 
metrical  structure  changes,^  is  untenable.  Spengel  himself  recognized 
a  few  exceptions  in  part  of  the  mss.  at  points  where  such  changes  occur, 
but  he  mentioned  none  of  the  four  places  where  all  mss.  are  opposed  to 
his  theory.  Similarly  at  points  where  the  metrical  structure  remains 
unchanged,  he  recognized  a  few  exceptions  in  mss.  of  Plautus,  but  he 
mentioned  none  of  the  four  places  of  this  nature  in  Terence.  Against 
not  only  these  exceptions,  but  also  others  in  which  the  mss.  are  at  vari- 
ance, Spengel's  theory  cannot  stand.  Changes  in  the  metrical  structure 
of  the  verse  and  division  of  the  text  depended  in  part  on  the  content 
of  the  several  passages,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  division  of 
the  text  was  ever  determined  by  the  metrical  structure  alone.^ 

In  spite  of  certain  differences  in  the  distribution  of  the  miniatures 
and  the  scene-headings,  the  principles  of  distribution  are  identical  in 
both.  The  three  classes  into  which  the  scenes  are  naturally  grouped 
\ff  the  entrance  or  the  exit  of  characters,  or  by  a  coincidence  of 
entrance  and  exit,  are  the  same  in  all  families  of  mss.  Moreover, 
the  exceptions  to  the  usual  principles  of  distribution  are  about  the 
same  in  number  in  all  classes  of  codices,  and  are  frequently  found  in 
the  same  places.  Some  of  these  exceptions  are  so  peculiar  as  to  pre- 
clude the  thought  of  accidental  agreement.  In  view  of  this  evidence, 
it  seems  impossible  that  the  distribution  of  the  miniatures  and  the 
scene-headings  should  have  been  made  by  two  persons  working  inde- 


*  SiizMngsber.  d.  bayr.  Akad.  phil.-hist,  C/.,  1883,  p.  273. 

*  The  unusual  position  of  the  scene-headings  in  8  codices  at  Haut.  980,  and  of 
the  miniatures  at  Eun.  943  may  be  due  to  changes  in  the  metrical  structure  in  these 
places. 


'' 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  139 

pendently.  In  all  probability  the  distribution  of  the  one  was  determined 
solely  by  the  distribution  of  the  other. 

If  scene-headings  originated  in  illustrated  mss.,  the  differences  in  the 
division  of  scenes  must  be  due  to  changes  in  the  process  of  transmission. 
That  such  changes  in  26  places  are  entirely  possible  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  the  mss.  of  the  S  family,  which  clearly  have  come  from 
a  single  archetype.  These  are  at  variance  in  scene-division  in  no  fewer 
than  sixteen  places.  Codices  of  the  y  family  are  twice  in  disagreement. 
The  distribution  of  scenes  in  the  archetypes  of  these  two  families  must 
be  determined  before  any  comparison  of  the  several  families  is  possible. 

For  convenience  in  reference  a  complete  list  of  passages  where  varia- 
tions in  scene-division  occur  is  given  on  p.  140.^  For  each  place  it  is 
stated  whether  the  occasion  of  the  new  scene  is  the  entrance  or  the 
exit  of  characters,  and  the  mss.  are  classified  according  as  they  have 
or  do  not  have  new  scenes,  or  have  lost  the  passage.  The  letters  y  and 
8  denote  the  archetypes  of  these  two  families.  Wherever  the  evidence, 
presently  to  be  considered,  shows  that  mss.  of  either  of  these  families 
have  varied  from  the  archetype,  they  are  included  within  parentheses. 

In  the  illustrated  mss.  scene-division  is  indicated  either  by  miniatures 
or  by  spaces  left  for  their  insertion.  Scene-headings  are  usually  trans- 
mitted with  the  miniatures,  or  in  the  spaces  left  for  pictures,  but  it 
seems  certain  that  the  transmission  of  the  headings  in  these  codices  has 
been  different  from  that  of  the  miniatures. '^  The  pictures,  therefore,  or 
spaces  designed  for  pictures,  are  the  only  certain  indications  of  scene- 
division  in  the  y  family  of  mss.  Evidence  of  this  nature  shows  that  the 
y  codices  are  twice  at  variance  in  the  distribution  of  scenes.  Before 
Haut,  3,  3,  32  (v.  593),  where  no  sign  of  division  is  found  in  any  other 
manuscript,  a  picture  is  given  in  F.^  The  evidence  shows  that  it  is  a 
late  addition  either  in  this  manuscript,  or  in  some  manuscript  from 
which  F  is  descended.  It  is  painted  two  verses  after  the  exit  of 
Clitipho,  the  only  occasion  for  a  new  scene.     Though  the  author  of 


*  A  few  places  are  omitted  in  which  the  Paris  mss.  Nos.  7900  and  7903  have  varied 
from  the  archetype  of  their  family. 

*  See  p.  163  ff. 

^  This  is  reproduced  by  Cardinal  Mai  in  M.  Acci  Plauti  Fragtn.  inedita,  item  ad 
P.  Terentium  Commentt.  et  Pidurae  ineditacy  p.  47.  It  is  also  given  by  Wieseler, 
Theatergebaude  etc.,  Taf.  X,  9. 


I40 


o 


m 
< 


> 


p 


§ 


H 


O 

o 


U 


no 


I 

s 

en 
u 


o  J« 
MS 

c  c 

CO  OB 

uu 


y<?A«  Calvin  Watson 


o* 

J 


o 


o 

oo" 


ooo 


1*1 

•<  *o  •© 


^5 

o  - 


o 


O 
I 


•I 


s^K>    ?*      •<    ?.W    ?*•< 


<e  *o 


o 

S  J" 
p  " 


O 


o 


o 

I 

«k 

o 


c5 


s 

•k 
#1 

o 

Q 


'W      W 


W  pq  W  «o     «o 


en 
O 


•J 


M 


M 


K  a 


M  00 

^   S  ctf  S  ^  fo 

.TS   ■^  -^  ^  .Ti  *^ 

^k         PMI  ^^i         fBfl         1^1         P"# 

M  [x4  H  U  M  H 


c  a 


8 


8  8  8 


8 


A    .1m    .'*■     4-t      .2      4_>    .^      ^ 

PM        ^>        tn        PW        IM        ^*         ^        P"4 


8 


X  a  X 

MUM 


8W  8  8  8 

g^  I  I  I 

■ta  ."^  ^a  s  a 

a  X  a  a  a 


in 


■  -^'     -  ON  ^ 

o\  2^  Tf  .  « 


On  On 

>0        '-'•^fnO^>N00_ 
s_^  ►*       tTk  ^  tr)irks_/oo  00   On 


N     •      •      •   t^    • 
ro  >    >    >   N   > 


>    > 

rovO       ro  m  t^  N  «  •* 
i-T  in     co^«i?minin 


»£l  NO       •* 

ON  t-«  vO 

On     nOnO>        >«-ii-tQO»'» 

fOt>»^>->  s-'»nt^oo  ON 

>      N«  „      >      >      >      > 


>  2  >  >  > 


C4    >         >    >    > 

^  On      N   -^  fn  f*  fo  "^  P^  On 

\rtiri      M  M  ro  ^  in  V)  tn  in 


po  PI  tn 
f*iin  in 


erjinrxm  On 

fofo^inin 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


141 


the  pictures  was  not  free  from  blunders  of  this  nature,^  the  unusual 
position  of  a  miniature  preserved  in  a  single  manuscript  is  strong 
evidence  against  its  authenticity.  Decisive  evidence  is  found  in  the 
dress  and  gestures  of  the  figures,  which  are  out  of  harmony  with  those 
in  the  rest  of  the  miniatures.  This  was  noticed  by  Wieseler,*  though  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  challenged  the  authenticity  of  the  picture. 
Gestures  with  the  left  hand  alone  are  not  found  elsewhere  in  the 
miniatures,  but  here  both  characters  use  the  left  hand  only.  This 
alone  is  sufficient  to  stamp  the  picture  as  a  late  addition,  due, 
very  probably,  to  the  copyist  of  F.  The  second  place  where  the  y 
codices  disagree  in  scene-division  is  before  Haut,  5,  2  (v.  954).*  At 
this  point  the  miniature  preserved  in  C  pictures  two  different  parts  of 
the  scene,  but  this  is  no  valid  ground  for  objection,  as  the  grouping  of 
the  figures  is  entirely  appropriate  to  the  passages  chosen  for  illustration. 
Against  the  grouping  of  the  figures  in  F,  O,  P  before  v.  874,  little  can 
be  said,  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  Clitipho  and  Syrus  do  not  address 
each  other  in  the  presence  of  the  two  senes.  The  names  in  these  three 
manuscripts  before  v.  954  are  difficult  to  explain,  but  they  may  indicate 
that  earlier  mss.  had  spaces  or  pictures  for  this  scene.  The  omission  of 
the  roles  in  O,  P  at  both  places  is  evidence  that  changes  of  some  kind 
have  been  made.  In  C,  on  the  contrary,  the  roles  are  regular  at  both 
places.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  tradition  is  cor- 
rectly preserved  in  C.  The  grounds  for  the  change  are  evident. 
According  to  the  method  of  division  in  C,  and  in  all  of  the  non- 
illustrated  MSS.  except  D,  Menedemus  and  Chremes  are  the  speakers 
in  two  successive  scenes  (v.  842  and  v.  874).  As  a  result,  the  minia- 
tures in  C  are  very  similar,  and  the  headings  in  most  mss.  are  identical. 
To  produce  a  difference  in  the  miniatures  at  the  second  place,  the 
figures  of  Clitipho  and  Syrus,  who  enter  at  v.  954,  were  transferred  to 
the  picture  before  v.  874,  and  the  picture  at  v.  954  was  omitted. 

In  the  non-illustrated  mss.  scene-division  is  indicated  either  by  scene- 
headings  or  by  spaces  left  by  the  copyist  for  their  insertion.  According 
to  evidence  drawn  from  both  these  sources,  the  mss.  of  the  S  family  are 
at  variance  in  the  distribution  of  scenes  in  sixteen  places.    At  each  of 


*  Cf.  p.  150.  *  Op,  cit.f  p.  73. 

^  The  pictures  at  this  place  and  at  v.  S74  are  discussed  above,  p.  82  f. 


t 


142 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Ir 


i 


these  it  is  evident  that  part  of  the  codices  do  not  preserve  the  distribu- 
tion of  scenes  which  existed  in  the  archetype.  In  the  process  of  trans- 
mission either  headings  have  been  dropped  from  some  of  the  mss.,  or 
they  have  been  inserted  in  others.  In  most  cases  it  is  not  difficult  to 
determine  which  of  these  changes  has  been  made.  Irregularities  of  any 
kind  at  such  places  give  evidence  of  changes  by  copyists.  Such  irregu- 
larities are  of  several  varieties.  Headings  for  which  no  spaces  had  been 
left  by  the  copyist  are  given  in  G,  one  in  the  margin  adjacent  to  Eun, 
5,  9  (v.  1049),  another  between  the  lines  before  Phorm,  i,  2  (v.  51). 
A  space  smaller  than  usual  was  left  for  the  heading  in  Paris.  10304 
before  Haut.  5,  4  (v.  1024).  The  name  of  Clitipho  is  omitted  in  L 
before  HauL  4,  7  (v.  829),  the  name  of  Chremes  in  M  before  Phorm, 
5,  9  (v.  990).  Menedemus  is  named  instead  of  Chremes  in  G  before 
Haut  5,  4  (v.  1024),  Parmeno  instead  of  Chaerea  in  the  margin  of  the 
same  manuscript  at  Eun,  5,  9  (v.  1049).  The  order  of  names  is 
unusual  in  M  before  Eun,  5,  4,  21  (v.  943),  and  in  L  before  Phorm, 
5,  9  (v.  990).  The  entrance  of  Chremes  before  Haut  4,  7  (v.  829)  is 
marked  in  L  by  a  heading  which  names  Chremes  with  Syrus,  but  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  Chremes  is  named  also  in  the  preceding  scene,  where 
he  is  not  on  the  stage  at  all.  Under  circumstances  precisely  similar  the 
name  of  Geta  is  repeated  in  L,  M  before  Phorm.  i,  2  (v.  51),  and  the 
name  of  Phidippus  in  M  before  Hec.  5,  2  (v.  767).  Though  no  head- 
ing is  found  in  Paris.  10304  at  Ad.  3,  3,  10  (v.  364),  and  though  Syrus, 
who  enters  at  this  place,  is  named  with  Demea  before  v.  355,  the  full 
name  Syrus^  instead  of  the  usual  abbreviation,  is  given  as  the  nota  per- 
sonae  in  v.  364.  The  word  idem  in  D  before  Phorm.  5,  6  (v.  841) 
indicates  that  in  some  manuscript  from  which  D  is  derived,  Phormio 
was  named  before  Antipho,^  but  this  order  is  not  found  before  v.  820, 
and  could  have  come  only  from  a  heading  before  v.  829,  where  the  text 
is  not  divided  in  D.  That  a  similar  change  has  been  made  in  the  order 
of  the  names,  Demea  and  Micio,  in  D  before  Ad.  4,  6  (v.  713),  is 
shown  by  the  unusual  order  of  the  role  and  numeral,  dvo  senes.  The 
original  order  could  have  been  derived  only  from  a  heading  before  v.  7 19, 
where  no  signs  of  division  are  preserved  in  D.  Before  Phorm.  i,  2 
(v.  51)  the  peculiar  role  faber  seems  to  be  assigned   to  Davus  in 


*  See  p.  167. 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  143 

Paris.  10304.^  The  roles,  which  are  regularly  given  elsewhere  in  the 
plays  referred  to,  are  omitted  in  D  before  Haut  4,  3  (v.  679)  and 
Phorm.  3,  3  (v.  5 34), 2  and  in  M  before  Eun.  5,  4,  21  (v.  943)  and 
Hec.  5,  2  (v.  767). 

The  peculiarities  enumerated  above  can  scarcely  be  found  except  in 
places  where  the  S  codices  are  at  variance  in  scene-division.  They  are 
confined  to  no  single  manuscript  or  group  of  manuscripts,  the  instances 
numbering  three  each  in  G,  L,  Paris.  10304,  and  four  each  in  D,  M. 
This  source  of  evidence,  available  for  twelve  of  the  sixteen  places  under 
consideration,  reduces  the  members  of  the  8  family  to  agreement  in  four 
scenes,  and  indicates  with  reasonable  certainty  the  direction  of  the 
change  in  eight  other  scenes,  in  any  one  of  which  all  variations  from 
the  archetype  must  have  been  in  the  same  direction. 

In  the  remaining  four  places  no  peculiarities  or  other  direct  indica- 
tions of  changes  are  preserved.  At  Haut  5,  2  (v.  954)  it  seems  im- 
possible to  determine  whether  D  has  followed  the  archetype,  or  has 
varied  from  it,  but  in  the  other  three  scenes  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  headings  transmitted  in  part  of  the  mss.  have  come  down  from 
the  archetype.  So  far  as  they  can  be  tested  by  the  roles  in  D,  Paris. 
10304,  they  are  perfectly  regular.  The  incorrect  division  of  the  text 
before  Haut  5,  2,  27  (v.  980),  instead  of  before  v.  978,  precludes  the 
thought  that  the  agreement  of  D,  G,  Paris.  10304  is  accidental.  The 
loss  of  division  in  G,  M  before  Phorm.  4,  2  (v.  591)  is  probably  an 
accident,  since  no  provision  is  made  for  Geta,  who  enters  at  this  point. 
The  common  original  of  these  mss.  very  probably  contained  only  the 
name  Geta,  the  role,  as  elsewhere  in  this  play,  being  omitted.  Single 
names  written  in  the  line  with  the  text  were  easily  confused  with  the 
abbreviation  of  the  same  name  employed  as  a  nota  personae,  and  were 
peculiarly  subject  to  erasure  or  omission.^     The  omission  in  L,  M  before 


•  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  the  alternate  arrangement  of  the  names  and  rSles  is 
found  in  but  four  other  places  in  Paris.  10304. 

*  In  the  only  other  scene  where  the  roles  are  omitted  in  D  —  Ad.  3,  2  (v.  299) 

they  are  also  omitted  in  G,  M,  and  the  order  of  names  is  unusual  in  Paris.  10304.  It 
is  not  improbable  that  the  archetype  of  the  family  was  without  division  of  the  text  at 
this  point. 

^  Cf.  Spengel,  Siizungsberichte,  etc.,  p.  284.     The  omission  of  headings  is  prob- 
ably to  be  explained  in  this  way  at  Ad.  1,  i  (v.  26),  G,  M;  4,  4  (v.  610),  M;  4,  6 


\ 


I 


^^ 


John  Calvin  Watson 


-fl5r^.  3,  3  (v.  361)  might  be  explained  in  the  same  way,  but  it  was  more 
probably  designed.  Since  the  occasion  of  the  new  scene  is  the  depart- 
ure of  two  of  the  three  characters  from  the  stage,  the  headings  here,  as 
before  Haut  5,  2,  27  (v.  980),  could  have  been  dropped  by  the  copy- 
ists without  other  changes.^ 

From  this  discussion  of  the  places  where  the  S  codices  disagree  in 
icene-division,  it  seems  reasonably  certain  that  in  six  the  headings  and 
division  of  the  text  preserved  in  part  of  the  mss.  are  derived  from  the 
archetype  of  the  family.  In  nine  of  the  remaining  ten  scenes  they  were 
not  contained  in  the  archetype,  but  are  later  additions  by  copyists.  The 
tenth  scene  is  in  doubt. 

Since  the  distribution  of  scenes  in  the  archetypes  of  the  y  and  the  8 
families  has  been  determined,*  we  may  proceed  to  a  comparison  of  the 
several  families  of  mss.  in  this  respect.  In  doing  this  it  is  convenient  to 
divide  the  places  where  variations  occur  into  two  classes,  the  first  con- 
sisting only  of  those  where  characters  enter,  the  second  only  of  those 
where  characters  leave  the  stage.  The  addition  or  omission  of  headings 
or  miniatures  in  places  of  the  first  class  required  the  omission  or  addition 
of  names  or  figures  of  characters  at  the  previous  point  of  division,  if  all 
the  characters  were  pictured  or  named  in  the  usual  way.  At  places 
of  the  second  class,  headings  or  miniatures  could  have  been  added  or 
omitted  without  other  changes.  Changes  in  the  first  class  were  more 
difficult  than  in  the  second.     This  is  particularly  true  of  the  miniatures. 

Variations  in  scene-division  are  found  in  seventeen  places  where 
characters  enter.  Since  in  every  instance  the  failure  to  divide  the 
text  violates  the  principles  of  distribution,  it  is  probable,  or  at  least 
not  improbable,  that  new  scenes  originally  began  at  all  of  these  places 
in  all  classes  of  mss.  Modem  editors  have  felt  the  inconsistencies  of  the 
MSS.,  and  usually  institute  new  scenes  at  these  points.'  The  failure  to 
divide  the  text  is  peculiar  to  no  family  of  codices,  the  instances  num- 
bering three  in  y,  five  in  A,  seven  in  E,  and  fourteen  in  S  codices. 


(v.  713),  M.     At  Hec,  2,  3  (v.  274)  the  heading  in  D  is  written  in  the  margin.    At 
^^<^'  3i  3  (v-  361)  a  name  has  been  erased  in  E,  and  none  is  transmitted  in  L,  M. 

*  Seep.  155  f. 

*  On  the  archetype  of  the  h  family  at  Ad.  5,  9  (v.  958),  see  p.  153  f. 

*  In  both  editions  Fleckeisen  omitted  division  at  Eun.  943  and  Ad.  364.     In  addi- 
tion to  these,  Dadatzko  has  no  new  scene  at  And,  965. 


1 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


145 


including  at  least  eight  in  the  archetype.  The  small  number  of  instances 
in  A  and  the  y  codices  is  strong  evidence  that  variations  in  division  are 
due  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  omission  rather  than  to  the  addition  of 
headings  and  miniatures.  The  Bembinus  and  the  y  codices,  as  com- 
pared with  S,  E,  must  be  supposed  to  preserve,  with  fewer  changes,  the 
original  distribution  of  scenes,  the  Bembinus,  because  of  its  great  superi- 
ority in  age,  the  y  codices,  because  the  difficulty  of  altering  the  minia- 
tures must  have  discouraged  any  changes  in  division. 

Another  source  of  evidence  is  found  in  the  part  of  a  play  in  which 
the  failure  to  divide  the  text  most  frequently  occurs.  Of  the  seventeen 
scenes  under  consideration,  all  but  two  are  within  the  second  half  of  a 
play,  eleven  are  found  within  the  fifth  act,  and  nine  within  the  last  125 
verses  of  a  play.  This  fact  not  only  indicates  that  scene-headings  and 
miniatures  have  been  dropped  from  the  text,  but  it  also  suggests  the 
ground  for  this  action.  As  copyists  drew  near  the  end  of  the  several 
plays,  they  seem  occasionally  to  have  been  constrained  to  omit  headings 
or  miniatures  in  order  to  save  space,  or  to  finish  the  rest  of  the  play 
within  a  certain  limit  of  space.  In  choosing  places  at  which  to  drop 
the  miniatures  or  headings,  some  discretion  was  used.  In  most  cases 
these  are  separated  from  either  the  preceding  or  the  following  points  of 
division  by  a  small  number  of  verses.  In  seven  places,  however,  the 
nearest  point  of  division  is  at  least  nineteen  verses  distant.  All  of  these 
unusual  exceptions  to  the  general  principles  of  distribution  are  found 
within  the  fifth  act,  and  four  of  them  are  at  the  last  entrance  of  charac- 
ters in  their  respective  plays. 

An  important  source  of  evidence  is  available  in  the  explanationes 
praeambulae  transmitted  among  the  scholia  in  the  later  codices.^  These 
are  introductions  to  the  several  scenes,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  show 
the  connection  of  one  scene  with  another,  and  to  describe  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  first,  or,  rarely,  the  first  two  characters  speak. 
The  date  of  their  origin  is  uncertain.  Wolfflin  refers  to  their  relatively 
good  Latinity,  and  to  their  freedom  from  expressions  peculiar  to  church 
writers,  and  seems  to   believe  that  they  were  comparatively  early  in 


*  A  collection  from  C,  D,  E,  G,  M  is  given  by  Schlee,  Scholia  Terentiana^  pp. 
79-162.     Selections  from  F  are  given  by  Cardinal  Mai;   for  the  reference,  see  p.  139. 


I 


146 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


origin.^  That  they  were  written  by  one  person  is  shown  by  their  dic- 
tion and  content.^  Where  the  mss.  are  in  accord  in  having  scene- 
division,  they  are  usually  found,  there  being  but  seven  exceptions.®  It 
is  highly  probable  that  they  were  written  for  these  scenes  also,  but  have 
been  lost,  for  in  several  others  they  seem  to  have  been  transmitted  in  a 
single  manuscript.*  It  is  true,  moreover,  that  the  scholia  are  usually 
wanting  at  points  where  changes  of  characters  are  not  marked  by  new 
scenes  in  any  famOy  of  codices.^  In  nine  places  where  the  mss.  are  at 
variance  in  scene-division,  no  introductory  scholia  are  found.  That  is, 
of  the  26  places  where  division  is  found  in  part  of  the  codices,  the 
number  that  have  no  scholia  is  relatively  six  times  as  great  as  at  points 
where  the  text  is  divided  in  all  classes  of  codices.  This  justifies  Schlee's 
remark  that  whenever  the  explanationes  praeambulae  are  not  found,  this 
fact  usually  indicates  that  at  such  points  new  scenes  were  not  instituted 
in  the  manuscript  for  which  they  were  written.  If  this  is  true,  it  should 
be  possible,  by  a  comparison  of  the  several  families  of  mss.,  to  deter- 
mine which  one  was  used  by  the  author  of  the  introductory  scholia.  It 
is  certain  that  this  was  not  a  manuscript  resembling  the  Bembinus,  for 
in  the  two  places  where  new  scenes  are  instituted  in  A  alone,  no  scholia 
are  found,  while  in  the  two  places  where  A  is  the  only  manuscript  with- 
out division,  the  scholia  are  transmitted  as  usual.  The  inquiry  must, 
therefore,  be  restricted  to  the  y  and  the  8  families  of  codices.  Dis- 
regarding variations  in  individual  manuscripts,  the  archetypes  of  these 
families  were  at  variance  in  fifteen  instances.*  At  all  of  the  nine  places 
where  the  y  family  have  new  scenes,  the  explanationes  praeambulae  are 
found,  while  they  are  given  at  only  three  of  the  six  places  where  the  8 
archetype  had  new  scenes.     Moreover,  at  one  of  the  three  points  where 

>  Archiv  f.  latein.  Lexik.  u.  Gram.,  VIII  (1893),  P-  415-  On  p.  414  n.,  Wolf- 
flin  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  oldest  portions  of  the  scholia  included  by  Schlee  under 
the  title  Commentarius  Antiquior  might  go  back  to  the  fourth  century. 

«  Cf.  Schlee,  p.  48;  Wolfflin,  p.  414  f. 

3  And.  I,  I  (v.  28);  5,  5  (v.  957);  Phorm.  5,  8  (v.  894);  Hec.  2,  3  (v.  274); 
Ad.  4,  2  (v.  540);   5,  3  (v.  787);   5,  7  (v.  899). 

*  Cf.  And.  2,  4  (v.  404),  C;  2,  5  (v.  412),  C;  2,  6  (v.  432),  M;  Haut.  4,  2 
(v.  668),  E;  Eun.  5,  2,  (v.  840),  E;  Phorm.  4,  3  (v.  606),  M;  Hec.  5,  i  (v.  727),  M. 

*  Cf.  pp.  158  f.  and  162. 

*  At  Haut.  5,  2  (v.  954),  where  the  archetype  of  the  3  family  is  in  doubt,  a  scho- 
Uum  seems  to  be  preserved  in  F  alone. 


I 


147 


such  scholia  are  transmitted,  it  is  almost  certain  that  miniatures  at  one 
time  existed.^  At  the  other  two,  pictures  could  have  been  dropped 
without  other  changes.'* 

In  view  of  the  evidence  given  above,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
the  introductions  to  scenes  were  written  for  an  illustrated  manuscript. 
To  attack  this  conclusion,  one  must  contend  that  they  were  written  for 
8  codices  which  had  new  scenes  in  the  nine  places  referred  to  above, 
thus  admitting  the  former  agreement  of  the  mss.  at  points  where  they 
are  now  at  variance.  The  chief  ground  for  Schlee's  conclusion  that  the 
mass  of  scholia  in  the  later  mss.  was  based  on  a  8  codex,  is  the  fact  that 
they  are  best  transmitted  in  members  of  this  family.'  Wolfiiin  has 
shown  that  in  all  probability  they  were  based  upon  a  manuscript  in 
which  the  order  of  plays  was  not  that  characteristic  of  the  S  family.* 
In  his  argument,  Wolfflin  seems  to  imply  that  the  order  of  plays  was 
that  found  in  the  Bembinus,  but  aside  from  the  fact  that  there  is  little 
or  no  evidence  of  any  connection  between  the  scholia  and  the  Bem- 
binus, his  argument  is  even  better  suited  to  show  that  the  order  of 
plays  followed  by  the  author  of  the  scholia  was  that  transmitted  in  the 
y  family. 

We  now  turn  to  the  consideration  of  passages  where,  on  the  entrance 
of  new  characters,  new  scenes  are  instituted  in  part  of  the  mss.,  and 
evidence  of  changes  is  preserved. 

And,  5,  6  (v.  965).  In  the  8  codices  alone  the  text  at  this  place  is 
divided,  the  headings  being  regular  in  every  respect,  except  that  they 
name  the  same  three  characters  that  are  named  before  v.  957.  Since 
such  a  repetition  of  names  elsewhere  in  this  family  is  accompanied  by 
unquestionable  evidence  that  headings  have  been  added,*  the  regularity 
of  the  headings  at  this  place  indicates  their  genuineness.  It  cannot  be 
proved  that  miniatures  ever  were  painted  before  v.  965,  but  there  is 
little  room  to  doubt  that  they  once  existed  before  v.  963.  The  ancient 
commentary  preserved  under  the  name  of  Donatus  gives  as  a  lemma  the 

>  And.  5,  6  (v.  963  or  965) .     This  will  be  considered  at  once. 
«  And.  I,  3  (v.  206);  Ad.  3,  5  (v.  511).     On  these,  see  p.  156. 
®  Op,  cit.y  pp.  38,  48,  49  f. 
*  Archivy  VIII,  p.  418. 

»  See  p.  142  on  Haui.  4,  7  (v.  829),  L;    Phorm.  i,  2  (v.  51),  L,  M;    and  Hec, 
5,  2  (v.  767),  M. 


148 


John  Calvin  Watson 


first  words  of  this  verse,  Quid  illud  gaudii  est?  and  adds  the  note  In 
aliis  Davi  persona  infertur}  The  meaning  of  these  words  is  that  in 
the  time  of  Donatus  some  codices  assigned  to  Davus  the  question 
given  in  the  lemma.  In  all  our  mss.  it  is  assigned  to  Charinus. 
But  if  some  codices  in  Donatus'  time  gave  the  nota  of  Davus 
before  v.  963,  this  place  rather  than  two  verses  below  was  the  proper 
point  of  division  in  these  codices.  The  explanaiio  praeambula  trans- 
mitted at  V.  965  is  almost  conclusive  evidence  that  the  text  for  which 
it  was  written  was  divided  before  v.  963.  This  note,  regular  in  every 
respect,  is  as  follows  :  Davus  solutus  a  Chremete  incipit  ire  ad  dominum 
Pamphiium,  et  dum  secum  loquitur,  Pamphilus  vidit  eum  venientem  et 
ait.  This  scholium  cannot  have  been  written  with  reference  to  v.  965, 
but  confirms  the  remark  of  Donatus  about  the  nota  of  Davus  before 
V.  963.  The  clause  dum  secum  loquitur  clearly  refers  to  the  question 
Quid  illud  gaudi  est,  and  the  words  Pamphilus  vidit  eum  venientem  et 
ait,  can  have  reference  only  to  Davom  video  spoken  by  Pamphilus  in 
V.  963.  The  testimony  of  Donatus,  supported  by  the  introductory 
scholium,  makes  it  reasonably  certain  that  in  some  early  codices  a  new 
scene  began  with  v.  963.  If  the  introductory  scholia  were  based  upon 
an  illustrated  manuscript,  miniatures  were  painted  before  the  verse 
named.  Although  this  cannot  be  demonstrated,  it  is  in  the  highest 
degree  probable.  The  fact  that  the  y  codices  agree  in  giving  the  nota 
of  Charinus  before  v.  963,  is  not  a  strong  objection,  for  the  same  is  true 
of  all  the  rest  of  the  mss.  The  Bembinus,  which  was  written  in  the  rime  of 
Donatus,  or  not  much  later,  has  the  nota  of  Charinus.  The  remark 
of  Donatus  shows  that  this  was  true  also  of  the  codices  upon  which  he 
usually  relied.  Since  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the  8  family  best  repre- 
sents the  codices  used  by  Donatus,  we  have  left  only  iQustrated  mss.  to 
which  the  notes  given  by  Donatus  and  the  commentarius  antiquior  can 
apply.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  nota  of  Davus  which  once 
existed  before  v.  963  in  the  y  mss.  has  been  changed  in  the  process  of 
transmission.  That  this  might  easily  have  happened  is  shown  by  the 
changes  in  Eun,  1037,  to  which  allusion  has  been  made  before.* 


'  The  copyist  of  D  had  observed  this  note,  for  he  writes  in  aliis  libris  Davi  persona 
Me  infertur  scd.  Don.    Cf.  Schlce,  Sehol.  Terentiana^  p.  68. 
*  See  p.  90  f . 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence 


149 


It  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  in  the  time  of  Donatus,  or 
earlier,  illustrated  manuscripts  had  miniatures  painted  before  v.  963. 
If  this  is  true,  changes  in  the  distribution  of  scenes  have  been  made  in 
the  y  family,  and  probably  also  in  the  S  family  of  codices.  The  nature 
of  these  changes  is  easy  to  discover.  The  naming  of  Davus  in  the  8 
headings  before  both  vv.  957  and  965  is  evidence  that  his  figure  appeared 
in  the  miniatures  before  both  scenes.  His  appearance  in  the  minia- 
tures at  the  first  place  is  easily  explained,  for  the  artist,  who  regarded 
him  as  the  first  speaker  in  v.  963,  must  have  supposed  that  he 
is  on  the  stage  and  overhears  Pamphilus  in  v.  961.  Under  similar 
circumstances  in  other  places  the  figure  of  a  character  is  painted  in 
the  miniatures  of  the  scene  preceding  that  in  which  he  takes  part  in  the 
dialogue.^  Since  the  same  three  figures  appeared  before  v.  963  as 
before  v.  957,  the  omission  of  the  miniatures  in  the  later  passage 
required  no  change  in  those  at  the  earlier,  and  was  an  easy  means  of 
saving  space  in  copying  the  remaining  seventeen  verses  of  the  play. 
The  order  of  names  in  the  8  headings  before  v.  965  very  probably  gives 
the  collocation  of  figures  which  existed  before  v.  963.  The  S  codices 
give  the  nota  of  Davus  first  before  v.  965,  but  it  was  easy  to  transfer 
the  heading,  together  with  the  explanaiio  praeambula,  from  v.  963  to 
this  place.  The  miniatures  before  v.  957  have  come  down  essentially 
unchanged.^  At  first  glance  the  two  young  men  appear  to  be  engaged 
in  conversation,  but  the  second  is  not  facing  the  first.  The  first  figure 
represents  Charinus  in  close  observation  of  Pamphilus,  who,  in  exuber- 
ance of  good  feeling,  is  addressing  the  audience.  Davus,  in  a  crouching 
attitude  characteristic  of  him  elsewhere  in  this  play,'*  grasps  his  scarf 
with  both  hands,  and  avoiding  being  seen  by  Pamphilus,  is  narrowly 
observing  him,  to  discover,  if  possible,  the  cause  of  his  elation. 

Haut,  5,  2  (v.  954).  The  distribution  of  scenes  at  this  place  in  the 
archetype  of  the  S  family  is  uncertain.  Whether  like  D  it  did  not  have 
division,  or  whether  the  failure  to  divide  the  text  is  due  to  the  copyist 
of  D,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  as  in  F,  O,  P,  a  heading  was  omitted 


>  Cf.  Eun.  3,  4  (v.  539) ;  5,  4  (v.  923) ;  Phorm.  2,  4  (v.  441) ;  Hec.  4,  2  (v.  577). 
•  A  facsimile  of  the  miniature  at  this  place  in  P  is  given  by  Silvestre,  Paleog.  Univ., 
Tome  II,  near  the  end. 

»  Cf.  And.  2,  5  (v.  412),  and  4,  5  (v.  796). 


ISO 


John  Calvin  Watson 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  151 


at  this  point,  in  order  to  add  two  names  before  v.  874,  thus  avoiding 
a  heading  for  the  latter  scene  identical  with  that  before  v.  842. 

Eun,  5,  4,  21  (v.  943).  The  division  of  scenes  at  this  place  is  very 
peculiar,  since  it  is  found  in  the  midst  of  the  four  verses  spoken  by 
Pythias.  The  miniatures  may  have  been  intended  to  mark  the  point  at 
which  Pythias  speaks  openly  in  the  presence  of  Parmeno,  the  change 
being  denoted  also  by  a  variation  in  the  metrical  structure  of  the  verse. 
But  since  such  a  position  is  without  precedent  in  the  plays  of  Terence,  it 
is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  an  error,  the  proper  place  of  division  being 
before  v.  941.  Against  the  genuineness  of  the  miniatures  nothing  can 
be  said.  The  long  explanatio  praeambula^  introducing  the  words  of 
Pythias  in  v.  943,  shows  that  the  miniatures  were  found  at  this  place  by 
the  writer  of  the  introductory  scholia.  If  the  pictures  were  intended 
for  v.  941,  the  figure  of  Pythias  in  the  miniatures  before  v.  923  repre- 
sents a  mute  character,  but  she  is  properly  shown  on  the  stage  in  this 
scene.  Though  she  enters  the  house  of  Thais  after  v.  922,  it  is  certain 
from  her  words  in  v.  941  f.  that  she  returns  to  the  stage  in  time  to  hear 
the  boastful  soliloquy  of  Parmeno.  Except  in  Donatus  and  in  M, 
which  has  varied  from  the  archetype  of  its  family,  there  is  no  direct 
evidence  that  headings  alone  ever  existed  before  v.  943,*  but  they  could 
easily  have  been  omitted,  for  they  must  have  contained  the  same  names 
as  the  headings  before  v.  923. 

Eun,  5,  9  (v.  1049).  The  ^^t  scene  of  the  play,  which  marks  the 
entrance  of  Phaedria,  begins  at  this  point  in  the  y  codices,  but  in  A,  8, 
Ej.the  text  is  not  divided.  Because  of  this  difference,  the  non-illustrated 
Mss.  usually  have  the  names  of  five  characters  before  v.  103 1,  where 
the  miniatures  have  the  figures  of  but  four.  At  one  time,  however,  all 
cksses  of  MSS.  must  have  had  division  at  both  places,  with  the  same 
number  of  characters  in  the  miniatures  and  the  headings.  This  is  the 
only  certain  scene  where  characters  who  are  not  on  the  stage  at  the 
same  moment  are  named  together  in  the  headings.*  Parmeno  leaves  the 
stage  after  v.  1042  in  quest  of  Phaedria,  and  there  is  no  indication  of 


'  In  the  codices  of  the  Donatus  commentary,  a  new  scene  begins  at  this  place.     See 
the  edition  by  P.  Weasner,  vol.  I,  Praef.  p.  XLIX. 

2  On  Haui.  4,  4  (v.  723),  see  p.  158  f.     On  Eun.  3,  2  (v.  454),  see  p.  71,  n.  i. 


his  return  with  Phaedria  in  v.  1049.^  The  fact  that  the  names  of 
Phaedria  and  Parmeno  are  united  in  the  headings  before  v.  103 1,  is 
evidence  that  some  change  has  been  made.  If  the  name  of  Phaedria 
be  omitted  from  the  headings  transmitted  in  A,  D,  L,  Paris.  10304,  the 
remaining  four  names  stand  in  the  peculiar  order  of  figures  in  the  minia- 
tures, an  order  which  rests  upon  a  distribution  of  notae  preserved  in 
illustrated  mss.  alone.  We  must  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  name  of 
Phaedria  has  been  inserted  in  the  headings  before  v.  1031  by  later 
hands.  Evidence  to  this  effect  is  still  found  in  8,  E.  Though  the 
names  of  the  young  men  are  given  together  as  usual  in  the  Bembinus, 
and  Phaedria,  the  f^fth  speaker,  is  the  second  named,  he  is  third  in  M, 
fourth  in  D,  L,  and  fifth  in  Paris.  10304.  His  name  is  not  given  in  E, 
G  at  all.  Though  the  archetype  of  the  8  family  had  no  division  of  the 
text  within  v.  1049,  no  provision  had  been  made  for  the  name  of 
Phaedria,  which  has  been  inserted  by  different  copyists  in  the  headings 
before  v.  1031.  For  the  several  reasons  given,  the  former  division  of 
the  text  in  all  classes  of  mss.  within  v.  1049  is  well  established. 

Phorm,  5,  3,  12  (v.  795).  The  entrance  of  Chremes  is  the  occasion 
of  a  new  scene  in  A,  8,  but  there  is  no  sign  of  division  in  y,  E.  Before 
V.  784  the  miniatures  picture  three  characters,  and  the  heading  in  E 
names  three,  but  the  headings  in  A,  8  name  but  two.  There  is  reason 
to  believe  that  the  illustrated  mss.  originally  had  the  figures  of  two 
characters  before  v.  784,  and  miniatures  with  three  figures  before  v.  795. 
In  the  discussion  of  the  miniatures  transmitted  before  v.  784,  it  was 
shown  that  they  have  not  only  an  unusual  collocation  of  characters,  but 
also  one  that  was  impossible  in  an  actual  performance  of  the  play.  The 
latter  circumstance  is  so  unusual  in  the  miniatures  as  to  arouse  suspicion 
about  the  authenticity  of  the  pictures.  It  is  further  to  be  noted  that 
this  is  the  only  place  where  the  miniatures  show  two  doors  in  one 
picture.*  Turning  to  the  headings  preserved  in  A,  8  before  or  within 
V.  795,  we  find  that  these  also  are  very  unusual,  for  Nausistrata,  who 
would  be  the  third  speaker  according  to  the  usual  method  of  division, 


'  It  is  possible,  not  to  say  probable,  that  in  an  actual  performance  of  the  play  Par- 
meno returned  with  Phaedria,  but  the  practice  of  the  headings  elsewhere  is  in  question. 
These  never  name  characters  of  whose  presence  <^here  is  no  indication  in  the  text. 

*  Cf.  Wieseler,  Theatergebdude,  etc.,  pp.  66. 


152 


John  Calvin  Watson 


is  the  first  to  be  named.  This  is  explained  by  the  position  of  the  Bem- 
bine  heading,  which  does  not  divide  v.  795,  but  precedes  it,  a  method 
of  division  which  makes  Nausistrata  the  first  speaker.  Since  the  head- 
ings in  8  codices  divide  the  verse  named,  it  is  probable  that  this  was 
true  of  the  archetype,  but  the  fact  that  in  these  mss.  also  Nausistrata's 
name  is  first,  is  proof  of  the  origin  of  the  family  from  some  manuscript 
which  had  the  peculiar  division  of  scenes  preserved  in  A.  The  headings 
in  all  of  these  mss.  are  perfectly  regular,  and  their  genuineness  is  beyond 
question.  In  view  of  the  inappropriateness  of  the  miniatures  before 
V.  784,  and  of  the  agreement  of  all  classes  of  mss.  in  peculiar  division 
at  two  other  places,^  the  conjecture  is  more  than  probable  that  minia- 
tures at  one  time  existed  before  v.  795,  and  that  when  these  were 
omitted,  the  figure  of  Chremes  was  transferred  to  the  picture  before 
V.  784.  In  this  way  the  unusual  and  unsuitable  collocation  of  figures 
in  the  miniatures  at  v.  784  can  be  explained.  If  the  figure  of  Chremes 
with  the  door  on  the  right  be  dropped  from  the  miniatures,  the  remain- 
ing two  figures,  with  the  door  on  the  left,  probably  represent  in  all 
essential  respects  the  conception  of  the  artist.  When  the  figure  of 
Chremes  was  transferred,  it  was  altered,  in  all  probability,  in  neither 
attitude  nor  gesture.  In  the  picture  before  v.  795,  which  must  have 
been  intended  to  illustrate  the  opening  of  the  new  scene,  Naustrata  was 
the  first  character.  The  positions  of  the  other  two  are  given  by  the 
headings  in  D,  L,  which  still  name  Demipho  second,  and  Chremes 
third.  In  A,  M,  Paris.  10304  the  names  of  the  two  senes  have  been 
reduced  to  the  normal  order,  but  the  peculiar  place  of  division  still 
preserved  in  A,  and  once  found  in  all  classes  of  mss.,  has  caused  the 
name  of  Nausistrata  to  retain  its  position.  The  collocation  of  figures 
to  which  the  headings  in  D,  L  bear  witness,  was  appropriate  to  represent 
the  opening  of  the  new  scene.  The  grouping  was  such  that  for  a 
moment  after  his  efitrance,  Chremes  might  easily  fail  to  notice  his  wife's 
presence  on  the  stage.  After  catching  sight  of  her,  he  could  speak  aside 
to  Demipho,  as  he  seems  to  do  in  v.  805 . 

Phomi,  5,9  (v.  990).     The  unusual  order  of  names  in  L,  together 
with  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Chremes  in  M,  is  almost  certain  evi- 


J I 


*  See  p.  134  ff. 


Scene- Headings  aiid  Miniatures  in   Terence  153 

dence  that  the  archetype  of  this  family,  like  D,^  had  no  new  scene 
beginning  with  the  entrance  of  Nausistrata.  If  this  is  true,  Nausistrata 
should  have  been  named  with  the  other  characters  before  v.  894,  but 
this  is  done  neither  in  D,  nor  in  any  other  member  of  this  family.^  The 
omission  of  her  name  is  sufficient  evidence  that  this  was  true  of  the 
archetype.  As  happened  in  the  Eunuchus,  when  the  last  two  scenes  of 
the  play  were  united,  no  provision  was  made  in  the  heading  of  the  pre- 
ceding scene  for  the  character  entering  at  the  point  where  the  heading 
was  dropped. 

^^-  3»  3»  10  (v.  364).  In  all  the  later  codices  except  Paris.  10304, 
which  has  varied  from  the  archetype  of  its  family,  the  entrance  of  Syrus 
in  V.  364  is  marked  by  a  new  scene.  The  Bembinus  has  no  sign  of 
division,  but  gives  the  names  of  Syrus  and  Dromo  with  Demea  in  the 
heading  before  v.  355,  where  the  later  codices  (except  Paris.  10304) 
name  only  Demea.  Some  manuscript  from  which  the  Bembinus  is  de- 
scended must  have  had  the  name  of  Demea  alone  before  v.  355,  with 
a  new  scene  beginning  within  v.  364.  The  naming  of  Dromo  in  the 
Bembine  heading,  and  the  omission  of  Stephanio  are  inexplicable  in  any 
other  way.* 

^^'  5>  9  (v.  958)-  With  the  entrance  of  Syrus  within  v.  958  a  new 
scene  begins  in  y,  E,  but  the  8  codices  have  neither  headings  nor  divi- 
sion of  the  text  at  this  point.  According  to  Umpfenbach  and  Kauer, 
the  lacerated  margins  of  the  Bembinus  give  evidence  that  in  this  manu- 
script also  the  text  was  not  divided.*  Whatever  may  have  been  true  of 
the  Bembinus,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  archetype  of  the  8  family  had  a 
new  scene  beginning  within  v.  958.   This  was  the  conclusion  of  Dziatzko, 


/ 


*  The  Victorianus  has,  apparently,  a  heading  written  in  the  margin  and  intended  for 
V.  986,  the  point  at  which  Phormio  first  tries  to  call  Nausistrata  out  of  the  house.  The 
impossibility  of  this  point  of  division,  together  with  the  peculiar  features  of  the  heading 
itself,  proves  that  it  does  not  rest  on  the  authority  of  any  manuscript. 

*  It  is  possible  that  Nausistrata  was  at  one  time  named  at  v.  894  either  in  M,  or  in  a 
manuscript  from  which  it  is  derived.  The  manner  in  which  Schlee  gives  the  heading 
at  this  place  seems  to  indicate  that  a  space  is  found  between  the  last  two  names. 

^  See  p.  127  f. 

*  Since  the  Bembine  headings  elsewhere  never  omit  the  name  of  a  speaking  charac- 
ter, it  is  very  probable  that  the  heading  before  v.  924  named  Syrus,  but  no  part  of  this 
heading  is  preserved,  and  Kauer  is  not  justified  in  stating  this  as  a  certainty.  See  his 
note  ad  loc.  in  his  revision  of  Dziatzko's  Adelpkoe. 


154 


John  Calvin  Watson 


who  called  attention  to  the  use  of  the  Latin  letter  S,  instead  of  a  Greek 
letter,  as  the  mta  of  Syrus  in  the  heading  transmitted  in  D  before 
V.  924,  and  to  the  unusual  position  of  the  name  of  Syras,  which  is  found 
first  of  all  in  the  heading  in  G  at  this  place.*  These  facts  were  held  by 
Dziatzko  to  indicate  that  the  name  of  Syrus  was  not  given  in  the  arche- 
type before  v.  924,  thus  requiring  that  a  new  scene  should  begin  with 
the  entrance  of  Syrus  in  v.  958.  Dziatzko*s  conclusion  is  confirmed  by 
L,  Paris.  10304,  neither  of  which  gives  the  name  of  Syrus  before  v.  924. 
Furthermore,  the  loss  of  the  first  half  of  v.  958  in  L  is  best  explained  as 
happening  when  the  heading  was  dropped.  But  the  most  important 
evidence  of  all  is  the  fact  that  the  unusual  order  of  names  found  in  G 
before  v.  924  exactly  reproduces  the  peculiar  order  of  figures  in  the 
miniatures  at  v.  958.  This  proves  that  the  heading  in  G  was  formerly 
given  at  V.  95  8.  When  the  two  scenes  were  combined,  it  was  transferred 
to  V.  924,  where  it  displaced  the  rightful  heading.  It  is  certain,  there- 
fore, that  the  archetype  of  the  family  did  not  name  Syrus  before  v.  924, 
but  had  a  new  scene  beginning  at  his  entrance  within  v.  958.* 

In  the  discussion  thus  far  the  codices  have  been  reduced  to  agreement 
in  six  of  the  seventeen  passages  where  at  the  entrance  of  characters,  they 
seem  to  be  at  variance  in  scene-division.  Excluding  E,  which  has  de- 
rived  its  distribution  of  scenes  chiefly  from  illustrated  mss.,  but  has  to 
some  extent  been  under  the  influence  of  8  codices,  the  number  of  scenes 
in  which  all  variations  have  been  explained  is  eight.  In  the  remaining 
nine  passages,  the  failure  to  divide  the  text  occurs  once  in  y,  three  times 
in  A,^d  six  times  in  8.     In  spite  of  the  want  of  direct  evidence  of 


'  Tauchnitz  edition,  1884,  adn.  crit.  on  v.  924.  Dziatzko  strangely  misunderstood 
the  heading  made  up  by  Umpfenbach  at  v.  924,  for  he  seemed  to  believe  that  it  was 
the  heading  preserved  in  the  Bembinus. 

'  In  the  separate  edition  of  the  Adelphoe  Dziatzko  has  no  new  scene  at  v.  958.  In 
a  note  he  held  that  the  failure  to  divide  the  text  at  this  place  in  A,  D,  G,  was  according  to 
the  usual  practice  when  a  slave  is  sent  on  a  brief  errand  into  one  of  the  houses  in  the 
rear  of  the  stage,  and  returns  to  find  the  same  characters  on  the  stage.  Since  Dziatzko 
abandoned  this  position  in  the  1884  edition  of  the  collected  plays,  it  would  not  be  neces- 
sary to  mention  his  earlier  note,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  Kauer  wrongly  keeps  it. 
At  the  return  of  Syrus  in  v.  958,  he  does  not  find  on  the  stage  the  same  characters  that 
he  left  at  his  exit  in  v.  916.  The  passages  dted  from  the  Eunuchus  are  not  parallels, 
for  in  these  there  is  no  entrance  of  a  new  character  between  the  exit  and  the  return  of 
the  character  who  momentarily  leaves  the  stage. 


Scene-Headings  ajid  Miniatures  in  Terence 


iSS 


changes,  it  is  very  probable  that  new  scenes  were  originally  instituted  in 
all  of  these  places.  The  naming  of  Davus  before  And.  5,5  (v.  95  7)  made 
it  easy  for  the  copyist  of  the  Bembinus  to  omit  the  heading  at  v.  965  (or 
V.  963).  Similarly,  the  naming  of  Pythias  before  Eun,  5,  4  (v.  923)  sug- 
gested the  omission  of  the  headings  before  v.  943,  Apart  from  these 
two  scenes,  the  instances  of  failure  to  introduce  new  scenes  when  new 
characters  enter,  number  one  each  in  A,  y,  and  five  in  S.  With  reference 
to  the  passage  in  the  Bembinus,  Ad.  5,9  (v.  958),  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  total  loss  of  the  heading  at  v.  924,  and  the  almost  complete 
loss  of  the  text  after  v.  914  have  removed  any  possible  evidence  of 
changes.  The  passage  in  the  y  codices  is  Ad.  5,  5  (v.  882).  Except 
at  Haui.  5,  2  (v.  954),  where  F,  O,  P  have  varied  from  the  archetype, 
no  instance  of  a  failure  to  begin  a  new  scene  in  these  codices  is  so 
unusual.  If  miniatures  have  been  omitted  at  v.  882,  those  transmitted 
before  v.  855  are  the  result  of  changes,  for  there  is  no  reason  for  the 
appearance  of  the  same  characters  in  both  pictures.  At  v.  855  Demea 
and  Syrus  are  painted  in  the  usual  order.  The  attitude  of  Syrus,  who 
seems  to  be  stroking  Demea's  face,  is  very  unusual.  According  to  the 
dialogue  in  v.  886  f.,  this  attitude  would  be  better  suited  to  Demea. 
While  it  seems  probable  that  some  change  has  been  made,  due,  in  all 
probability,  to  the  omission  of  a  miniature  at  v.  882,  it  appears  impossi- 
ble to  determine  the  nature  of  the  change.  For  the  five  places  at 
which  the  text  is  not  divided  in  the  S  codices,  there  is  a  total  lack  of 
direct  evidence.  In  every  instance  the  names  of  the  new  characters  are 
given  in  the  correct  order  at  the  preceding  point  of  division. 

In  eight  places  where  characters  leave  the  stage,  the  mss.  disagree  in 
scene-division.  In  all  of  these  but  one,  recent  editors  usually  indicate 
new  scenes.*  Since  in  any  instance  the  characters  remaining  on  the 
stage  were  named  or  painted  at  the  previous  point  of  division,  it  was 


*  Haut.  3,  3,  32  (v.  593).  Haui.  978,  not  v.  980,  properly  begms  the  new  scene 
in  the  editions  of  Dziatzko  and  Fleckeisen  (second).  At  Phorm.  2,  4  (v.  441), 
Dziatzko  recognized  that  the  failure  of  the  Bembinus  to  have  a  new  scene  is  a 
deviation  from  the  usual  rule,  so  he  divided  the  text.  Cf.  Tauchnitz  edition,  1884, 
adn.  crit.  ad  loc. ;  also  the  separate  edition  of  the  Phormio^  Einleitung,  p.  32,  n.  4. 
Hauler  retained  Dziatzko's  note  —  Cf.  AUgem.  Einl.^  p.  47,  n.  5  —  but  chose  to  follow 
the  Bembinus.  The  grounds  for  division  at  this  point  are  as  strong  as  at  w.  534  and 
682  of  the  same  play. 


IS6 


John  Calvin  Watson 


very  easy  to  drop  the  miniatures  and  headings,  and  when  this  was  done, 
no  traces  of  the  change  remained.  Excluding  HauL  3,  3,  32  (v.  593) 
and  Hec,  3,  3  (v.  361),  where  the  codices  have  already  been  brought 
into  agreement,  the  failure  to  institute  new  scenes  is  found  twice  each  in 
A,  S,  and  four  times  each  in  y,  E.  The  superiority  of  A,  due  to  its  age, 
is  again  evident.  The  miniatures  could  be  omitted  without  other 
changes,  and  as  a  result  the  number  of  omissions  is  in  striking  con- 
trast with  the  number  at  points  where  characters  enter.  Except  at  And, 
I,  3  (v.  206),  where  a  note  resembling  an  explanatio  praeambula  points 
to  the  former  existence  of  miniatures,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  that 
cither  headings  or  miniatures  have  been  omitted  before  passages  in  this 
class.  But  if  the  repetition  of  the  figure  of  Davus  at  And,  963  caused 
the  omission  of  the  miniatures,  or  if  both  miniatures  and  headings  have 
been  omitted  in  some  instances  where  the  omission  required  the  transfer 
of  the  figures  or  of  the  names  of  characters  to  the  preceding  point  of 
division,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  both  headings  and  miniatures 
have  sometimes  been  dropped  where  no  further  changes  were  necessary. 
The  existence  of  division  in  one  class  of  mss.  is  strong  evidence  of  its 
existence  in  the  original  from  which  the  several  classes  have  drawn 
their  system  of  scene-division. 

^d,  3,  5  (v.  511),  where  the  return  of  Hegio  follows  the  exit  of 
Demea,  properly  belongs  to  the  class  just  discussed.  Hegio  is  active  in 
the  previous  scene,  so  that  his  figure  at  v.  5 1 1  in  the  y  codices,  and 
his  name  in  E  could  easily  have  been  omitted.  Since  an  explanatio 
praeambula  is  preserved  at  this  place,  the  former  existence  of  minia- 
tures can  scarcely  be  doubted. 

The  fact  that  in  seven  passages  scene-division  is  preserved  in  a  single 
codex  or  family  of  codices,  suggests  that  in  some  instances  it  may  have 
been  lost  altogether.  The  commentary  of  Donatus  bears  witness  to  the 
institution  of  new  scenes  at  a  number  of  places  where  the  text  is  not 
divided  in  any  of  our  mss.  In  some  of  these  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  evidence  of  the  commentator,  for  in  two  passages,  in  harmony 
with  his  usual  practice,  he  wrote  notes  on  the  content  of  the  new 
scenes,  and  in  one  passage  the  Donatus  mss.  preserve  an  appropriate 
heading.  At  And,  i,  2  (v.  175)  the  chief  character  of  the  play  enters 
and  the  lyric  measures  begin.  According  to  the  practice  elsewhere,  a 
new  scene  should  begin  at  this  point.     The  miniatures  at  v.  172  repre- 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


157 


f 


sent  the  two  characters  in  the  usual  order,  Davus  being  seen  as  he 
enters  from  a  door  on  the  right.  Against  the  pictures  there  seems  to 
be  no  valid  ground  of  objection.  Since  Davus  enters  in  v.  174,  the 
miniatures  at  v.  172  may  always  have  contained  his  figure,  and  new 
miniatures,  with  the  same  two  characters  in  the  reverse  order,  may 
originally  have  been  prepared  for  v.  175.  Examples  of  such  a  repeti- 
tion still  exist  in  the  illustrated  mss.,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
this  was  the  cause  of  the  omission  of  miniatures  at  And,  963.  Another 
place  where  Donatus  found  a  new  scene  is  And,  4,  3,  7  (v.  722).  The 
miniatures  before  v.  716  clearly  illustrate  v.  721,  and  rightly  contain 
the  figure  of  Davus,  who  enters  before  this  verse.  An  explanatio 
praeambula,  typical  in  every  respect,  describes  the  circumstances  under 
which  Mysis  first  addresses  Davus  in  v.  721.  This  fact  seems  to  indi- 
cate the  former  existence  of  miniatures  prepared  for  a  new  scene 
beginning  with  the  words  mi  homo  in  v.  721.  This  point  of  division, 
though  very  unusual,  is  precisely  similar  to  that  at  And.  3,  3  (v.  533). 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  some  copyist  transferred  from  v.  721  to 
V.  716  the  miniatures  transmitted  before  the  latter  verse,  and  that  he 
omitted  a  picture  containing  only  the  figure  of  Mysis.  In  the  codices 
used  by  Donatus,  the  point  of  division  had  been  changed  so  that  the 
new  scene  began  with  the  first  words  of  Davus  in  v.  722.  That  a  similar 
change  had  been  made  at  And,  963  seems  beyond  question.  The  third 
place  referred  to  is  And,  2,  3  (v.  375),  where  the  occasion  of  the 
division  is  the  exit  of  Charinus.  Since  the  characters  remaining  on  the 
stage  are  both  pictured  and  named  before  v.  338,  the  miniatures  and 
headings  at  this  point  could  serve  for  both  scenes. 

At  these  three  points  it  is  probable  that  both  miniatures  and  headings 
existed  originally,  but  that  these  have  been  dropped  by  various  copyists 
until  the  codices  have  lost  all  traces  of  them.  Since  the  failure  to 
divide  the  text  at  each  of  these  points  is  very  unusual,  it  is  surely 
possible  that  new  scenes  were  at  one  time  instituted  in  other  passages 
where  the  regular  principles  of  distribution  now  seem  to  be  violated. 
If  the  entrance  of  Davus  m  And.  i,  2,  4  (v.  175)  was  the  occasion  of  a 
new  scene,  the  preceding  scene  had  but  three  verses.  For  this  reason 
the  limits  to  the  length  of  scenes  noticed  above  will  be  disregarded  in 
the  following  pages. 


I 


158 


John  Calvin  Watson 


To  the  rale  that  new  scenes  begin  at  points  where  there  is  both  an 
entrance  and  an  exit  of  characters,  the  only  exception,  where  none  of 
the  Mss.  indicate  a  new  scene,  is  at  Haut  4,  4,  21  (v.  743).     The  com- 
mentary of  Donatus  on  this  play  is  lost,  and  no  explanatio  praeambula 
is  transmitted   at   the   point  named,  so  that  any  traces  of  changes 
must  be  sought  in  the  headings  or  the  miniatures  before  v.  723.     The 
5  codices  preserve  clear  evidence  that   their  headings  at  this  place 
were  derived  from  the  miniatures  in  their  present  form.    If  changes 
have   been  made,  the  miniatures  alone  can   betray  this   fact.     Since 
these  represent  Dromo  on  the  stage  with  Bacchis,  Phrygia  and  Clinia, 
it  was  assumed  in  the  interpretation  that  they  were  intended  to  illus- 
trate V.  743,  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  this  is  true.     In  picturing 
together  on  the  stage  characters  who  are  not  on  the  stage  at  the  same 
time,  they  are  without  precedent,  for  it  seems  to  be  after  the  exit 
of  the  other  three  characters,  not  before  it,  that  Dromo  enters.     More- 
over, the  gestures  of  part  of  the  figures  are  unsuitable,  if  they  refer 
to  V.  743,  but  they  are  entirely  appropriate  to  an  earlier  passage. 
Bacchis  and  Phrygia,  who  scarcely  address  each  other  after  v.  735, 
appear  in  conversation  on  the  left.     The  gesture  of  Bacchis  is  best 
regarded  as  accompanying  her  instructions  to  Phrygia.    Clinia's  hand  is 
extended  toward  the  two  slaves,  and  he  seems  to  be  speaking  to  them, 
but  he  does  not  address  Dromo  at  all,  and  speaks  to  Syrus  only  in 
V.  729.     Syrus  has  his  hand  lifted  to  his  face  in  an  attitude  which  else- 
where denotes  dejection  or  serious  thought,  an  attitude  which  he  can 
assume  only  early  in  the  scene,  when  he  hears  the  threats  of  Bacchis. 
The  position  of  Dromo's  arm,  which  is  uplifted  and  extended  backward, 
has  no  resemblance  to  a  gesture.    The  position  of  the  fingers  is  open  to 
the  same  objection.     For  three  reasons,  therefore,  the  miniatures  trans- 
mitted before  v.  723  are  such  as  to  arouse  suspicion.    The  fact  that  the 
gestures  and  attitudes  of  four  figures  refer  to  a  passage  earlier  in  the 
scene  indicates  that  the  figure  of  Dromo  is  a  later  addition.     If  this  is 
true,  there  must  have  been  a  new  picture  where  he  enters,  at  v.  743, 
the  new  scene  containing  only  Dromo  and  Syrus.     Dromo,  as  the  new 
character,  very  probably  was  painted  on  the  left     When  the  miniature 
at  this  place  was  dropped,  the  figure  of  Dromo  was  inserted  in  the 
picture  before  v.  723,  space  for  it  being  made  by  separating  the  figures 
of  Clinia  and  Syrus.    This  explains  the  unusual  order  of  Dromo  and 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  159 

Syrus  in  the  miniatures.  In  other  places  where  figures  have  been  trans- 
ferred from  one  picture  to  another,  there  was  little  change,  apparently, 
in  their  attitudes.  If  this  is  true  of  Dromo,  we  must  suppos-^  that  he 
was  represented  at  v.  743  as  half  within  a  door,  for  in  this  way  the 
peculiar  position  of  his  arm  and  fingers  is  easily  explained. 

At  points  where  characters  enter,  the  rules  of  distribution  are 
violated  six  times,  but  if  changes  occurring  within  the  limit  of  six 
verses  be  included,  the  number  will  be  increased  to.  twelve.  At  two  of 
these,  as  described  above,  Donatus  preserves  evidence  of  the  former 
division  of  the  text.  In  the  remaining  ten  places  neither  Donatus  nor 
the  writer  of  the  explanationes  praeambulae  gives  any  indication  of 
scene-division.  If  miniatures  and  headings  have  been  dropped  at  these 
pomts,  the  change  was  before  Donatus'  time.  Since  changes  of  this 
nature  required  the  transfer  of  names  or  figures,  the  headings  and 
miniatures  at  the  preceding  points  of  division  are  the  only  source  of 
evidence.  Except  at  And,  5,  2  (v.  842),  where  the  headings  are  in 
some  disorder,  and  the  miniatures  are  lost,^  both  have  a  normal  order 
of  characters.  The  headings  in  but  one  instance  preserve  any  evidence 
of  changes  in  scene-division.  Against  most  of  the  miniatures  also  there 
are  no  grounds  for  objection.  Those  before  And,  4,  4  (v.  740)  illus- 
trate w.  3-5,  including  the  entrance  of  Davus  in  the  latter  verse. 
Before  Eun,  5,  3  (v.  910)  they  present  the  opening  of  the  scene,  and 
show  Chremes  and  Sophrona  as  they  enter  in  v.  3.  The  passage  to 
which  the  miniatures  before  Emu  3,  i  (v.  391)  refer,  is  not  clear,  but 
the  entrance  of  Parmeno  scarcely  needed  to  be  indicated  by  a  new 
scene,  for  it  occurs  after  Thraso  and  Gnatho  have  spoken  little  more 
than  three  verses,  and  Parmeno  has  a  very  unimportant  part  in  the  scene. 
Similarly,  the  miniatures  before  Haut.  5,  i  (v.  874)  are  difficult  to 
interpret.  While  there  is  no  evidence  of  changes,  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
if  the  entrance  of  Chremes  in  v.  6  was  the  occasion  of  a  new  scene,  the 
picture  could  have  been  transferred  to  the  position  before  v.  874,  for 
any  distinction  between  the  figures  of  the  two  senes  seems  impossible. 
In  these  four  passages  the  small  number  of  verses  in  a  scene  which  a 
division  of  the  text  would  have  caused,  may  excuse  the  apparent  viola- 
tion of  the  usual  principles  of  distribution.    For  the  remaining  five  places 


*  See  p.  168  £. 


i6o 


John  Calvin  Watson 


no  such  reason  can  be  given,  and  in  all  of  them  probable  evidence  of 
changes  is  preserved.  The  miniatures  transmitted  before  Eun.  3,  3 
(v.  507)  represent  Dorias  entering  from  the  house  of  Thais,  and  seem 
to  refer  to  the  last  verse  of  the  scene  (v.  538).  But  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  she  actually  enters  at  this  point,  and  we  must  suppose  that 
she  enters  with  Pythias  in  v.  531.  Sostrata  and  Parmeno  see  Pamphilus 
at  his  entrance  in  Hec,  3,  2,  18  (v.  353),  but  in  the  miniatures  trans- 
mitted before  v.  336  they  appear  in  earnest  conversation,  and  neither 
o!  them  pays  the  slightest  regard  to  Pamphilus,  who  is  shown  coming 
from  the  door  of  Phidippus  on  the  right.  In  the  miniatures  before 
Hec.  4,  I  (v.  516),  Myrrina*s  gesture  with  both  hands  is  more  appropri- 
ate to  her  excited  language  at  the  opening  of  the  scene,  than  to  her 
forced  composure  after  the  entrance  of  Phidippus  in  v.  522.  In  the 
pictures  before  Hec,  5,  3  (v.  799),  the  attitude  of  Parmeno  is  not  that 
of  a  person  conversing  with  Bacchis,  but  is  appropriate  to  his  soliloquy 
in  the  opening  verses  of  the  scene,  before  he  catches  sight  of  Bacchis  in 
V.  806.  The  miniatures  before  Ad,  2,  3  (v.  254)  show  Syrus  addressing 
Ctesipho,  and  pointing  to  the  house  of  Micio,  from  which  he  has  just 
come.  The  figure  of  Syrus  clearly  refers  to  his  words  Ellum,  te  expectat 
domi,  spoken  after  his  entrance  in  v.  7.  The  picture  seems  appropriate 
in  every  respect,  but  not  only  the  Bembine  heading  for  this  scene,  but 
also  the  headings  in  the  later  codices  before  the  following  scene,  show 
in  all  probability  that  the  figure  of  Sannio  was  painted  at  one  time  in 
the  miniatures  before  v.  254.^  If  the  Bembine  heading  may  be  trusted, 
Sannio  was  shown  between  the  other  two  characters.  For  this  position 
no  reason  whatever  can  be  found  in  the  text.  It  is  not  improbable, 
therefore,  that  the  original  picture  before  v.  254  contained  only  the 
figures  of  Ctesipho  and  Sannio,  and  that  a  new  picture  containing  three 
figures  was  prepared  for  the  entrance  of  Syrus  in  v.  260.  The  brevity 
of  the  two  scenes  prompted  a  copyist  to  combine  them.  To  do 
this,  the  picture  at  v.  260  was  dropped,  and  the  figure  of  Syrus  was 
transferred  to  the  third  place  in  the  miniatures  before  v.  254.     At 

*  See  p.  166  f.  on  the  uses  of  eidem  and  idem.  If  the  combined  evidence  of  the 
Bembine  heading  at  Ad.  254,  and  of  the  headings  in  the  later  codices  at  v.  265,  show 
that  the  figure  of  Sannio  once  appeared  in  the  miniatures  at  v.  254,  the  Bembine  head- 
ing alone  at  Phorm.  4,  2  (v.  591)  is  strong  evidence  that  the  figures  of  Demipho  and 
Chremes  were  formerly  painted  in  the  miniatures  before  this  scene. 


\[ 
ii  1' 

I  I 
If 


/ 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


161 


a  still  later  period  the  figure  of  Sannio,  who  is  a  mute  character,  was 
omitted. 

Another  probable  instance  of  the  combination  of  two  scenes,  with  a 
change  in  the  miniatures  preceding  the  first,  is  found  in  the  last  scene 
of  the  Hecyra,     As  has  been  shown  above,^  the  only  miniatures  that 
contain  two  figures  of  one  character  are  those  transmitted  before  Hec, 
841.     It  is  possible  to  explain  this  as  an  attempt  to  present  two  stages 
of  the  action  in  a  single  picture,  for  while  three  characters  seem  to  be 
on  the  stage,  Pamphilus  converses  only  with  Parmeno  in  the  first  four- 
teen verses,  and  only  with  Bacchis  in  the  following  eighteen,  after  which 
Bacchis  seems  to  leave  the  stage.     In  the  miniatures,  Pamphilus,  the 
first  figure  on  the  left,  is  shown  stroking  the  face  of  Parmeno.     This 
part  of  the  picture  refers  to  v.  849  ff.,  where  the  youth,  elated  by  the 
message  conveyed  through  Parmeno,  expresses  his  eagerness  to  reward 
him.      The   third   figure   represents  Pamphilus   in  conversation   with 
Bacchis,  this  part  of  the  illustration  referring  to  w.  855-872.     The 
miniatures  seem  appropriate,  therefore,  to  present  two  parts  of  the  scene. 
But  miniatures  of  this  kind  are  very  rare,  and  never  elsewhere  have  two 
figures  for  one  character.     More  probably  one  of  the  two  figures  repre- 
senting Pamphilus  is  due  to  a  copyist.     That  the  tendency  to  combine 
scenes  increased  toward  the  end  of  a  play,  is  beyond  question.     More- 
over, if  the  conclusions  stated  above  are  correct,  the  Hecyra  has  suffered 
changes  of  this  nature  in  three  other  places.     Finally,  it  is  easy  to 
account  for  the  division  of  the  text  in  what  is  now  the  last  scene  of 
the  play.     Bacchis  seems  to  remain  on  the  stage  after  v.  840,  but  the 
evidence  that  she  does  so  is  not  decisive.    As  in  three  other  very  similar 
scenes,*  the  artist  decided  that  Bacchis  leaves  the  stage  after  v.  840,  and 
returns  before  v.  854.     Holding  this  view,  he  was  required  by  his  prin- 
ciple of  distribution  to  prepare  a  picture  for  a  new  scene  beginning 
with  the  first  words  of  Bacchis  in  v.  855.     Moreover,  in  his  belief  that 
Bacchis  enters  after  v.  853,  it  is  possible  tiiat  the  artist  represented  her 
in  the  original  picture  before  v.  841.     If  he  did  so,  the  picture  at 
V.  855  could  have  been  omitted  without  any  transfer  of  figures.     What- 
ever may  be  true  of  the  figure  of  Bacchis  in  the  miniatures  before 
V.  841,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  second  figure  of  Pamphilus  was  taken 
from  the  picture  at  v.  855,  for  it  is  strikingly  similar  in  attitude  to  the 


*  See  p.  66, 


'  See  p.  68  f. 


l62 


John  Calvin  Watson 


first.    The  slight  change  in  gesture  could  easily  have  been  made  by  a 
copyist. 

In  27  places  where  the  exit  of  characters  occurs  seven  verses  or  more 
from  any  extant  point  of  division,  new  scenes  are  not  found  in  any 
manuscript.  If  the  limit  of  seven  verses  be  disregarded,  the  number 
will  be  increased  to  about  64,  of  which  50  are  separated  by  not  fewer 
than  five  verses  from  the  nearest  place  of  division.  In  but  one  of  these 
is  it  possible  to  find  in  Donatus  any  evidence  of  the  former  division  of 
the  text.  This  is  at  And,  2,  3  (v.  375),  which  has  been  discussed 
above.  Notes  resembling  explanationes  praeambulae  are  preserved  at 
but  four  of  the  entire  number  of  passages.*  In  all  the  rest  of  the  pas- 
sages the  silence  both  of  Donatus  and  of  the  writer  of  the  introductory 
scholia  is  positive  evidence  that  they  did  not  find  new  scenes.  On  any 
changes  which  may  have  been  made  before  the  time  of  the  commenta- 
tors, there  is  a  total  lack  of  evidence.  It  seems  probable,  however, 
that  miniatures,  and  possibly  headings,  have  been  omitted  in  some  of 
the  places  under  discussion.  At  points  where  characters  leave  the 
stage,  the  codices  are  at  variance  in  scene-division  with  relatively 
greater  frequency  than  at  points  where  they  enter.  This  is  especially 
true  in  illustrated  mss.  If  both  miniatures  and  headings  have  been 
dropped  at  places  where  this  action  involved  the  transfer  of  figures  and 
names  of  characters,  it  is  a  probable  conjecture  that  they  have  been 
dropped  at  some  places  where  no  such  changes  were  necessary.  Whether 
the  artist  painted  miniatures  for  all  of  the  50  passages  referred  to,  or  even 
for  all  of  the  2  7,  may  well  be  doubted.  Passages  at  which  division  is  pre- 
served in  part  or  all  of  the  mss.  indicate  that  the  decision  depended  in 
part  upon  the  length  of  the  scenes,  in  part  upon  essential  turns  or 
changes  in  the  course  of  the  play.  According  to  these  criteria,  the 
passages  at  which  Donatus  and  the  explanationes  praeambulae  transmit 
evidence  of  the  former  division  of  the  text,  were  suitable  places  in  which 
to  institute  new  scenes.  Beyond  this  point  it  is  difficult  to  go,  but  it  is 
not  improbable  that  new  scenes  at  one  time  were  instituted  in  places 
where  the  metrical  structure  changes  with  the  exit  of  characters.* 


»  And.  3,  2,  9  (v.  489) ;  Haut.  i,  i,  115  (v.  1 67);  4»  7f  7  (v.  835);  Run,  2,  I, 
19  (v.  225).  The  notes  at  And,  3,  2,  44  (v.  524)  and  HatU.  5,  2,  43  (v.  996)  are 
too  brief  to  be  identified  as  introductory  scholia.  At  Haui.  3,  i,  93  (v.  502),  where 
Chremes  temporarily  leaves  the  stage,  a  typical  explanado  praeambula  is  preserved. 

'  These  are  given  on  p.  137,  n.  4. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in   Terence  163 


The  Source  and  the  History  of  the  Scene-Headings  in 

Illustrated  Manuscripts 

Until  recently  it  has  always  been  assumed  that  the  scene-headings  in 
the  y  codices  have  had  about  the  same  history  as  the  miniatures,  and 
hence  that  they  possess  some  measure  of  authority.  This  misconception 
has  more  than  once  led  to  the  misinterpretation  of  certain  of  the  minia- 
tures. That  the  names  are  not  always  correctly  assigned  to  the  figures 
was  recognized  by  Wieseler,  and  still  earlier  by  Cocquelines,  but  neither 
of  these  scholars  seriously  questioned  the  traditional  assignment.  In 
1893  the  theory  that  the  pictures  and  the  headings  were  derived  from 
different  sources  was  advanced  by  Schlee.^  So  far  as  this  theory  relates 
to  the  transmission,  it  is  beyond  question  correct.  Since  Schlee,  in 
support  of  his  position,  cited  only  a  few  scenes  in  which  no  names  are 
assigned  to  mute  characters,  or  the  assignment  to  speakers  is  incorrect, 
it  seems  advisable  to  give  more  complete  evidence.  The  omission  of 
names  by  the  copyists  of  C,  P  occurs  almost  invariably  in  scenes 
where  the  order  of  figures  is  in  some  way  unusual,  or  is  difficult  to 
determine.*  Errors  in  the  assignment  are  found  chiefly  in  scenes  where 
the  collocation  of  figures  is  unusual.  This  is  true  of  seven  scenes  in  P, 
of  eight  each  in  F,  O,  and  originally  of  twenty-three  scenes  in  C.^  In 
addition  to  these,  there  is  one  scene  each  in  F,  O,  P,  and  six  in  C,  in 


*  Scholia  Terentiana,  p.  6  f. 

2  The  complete  list  of  such  scenes  is  as  follows:  And.  i,  i  (v.  28),  C;  2,  5 
(v.  412),  C,  (so  Paris.  7903);  3,  i  (v.  459),  P,  (so  Paris.  7903);  3,  4  (v.  580),  P; 
4,  4  (v.  740),  C,  P,  (so  Paris.  7903);  5»  4  (v.  904)5  C,  P;  Haut.  4,  7  (v.  829),  P; 
Run.  3,  2  (v.  454),  C,  P,  (so  Paris.  7903);  3,. 5  (v.  549),  P;  Phorm.  2,  3  (v.  348), 
P;  Hec.  I,  I  (v.  58),  P;  i,  2  (v.  76),  P;  Ad.  5,  9  (v.  958),  P.  Except  in  P  at 
And.  4,  4  (v.  740),  Run.  3,  5  (v.  549),  and  Ad.  5,  9  (v.  958),  and  in  Paris.  7903, 
names  have  been  added  at  these  places  by  later  hands.  The  names  of  mute  characters 
are  frequently  omitted. 

3  And  2,  I  (v.  301),  C;  2,  6  (v.  432),  C;  3,  i  (v.  459),  C;  3,  4  (v.  580),  C, 
O;  5»  3  (v.  872),  C,  O,  P;  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242),  F;  4,  4  (v.  723),  C,  F;  4,  7 
(v.  829),  C;  Run.  2,  2  (v.  232),  C,  P;  3,  3  (v.  507),  C;  3,  4  (v.  539),  C;  3,  S 
(v.  549) »  C;  4,  3  (v.  643),  C,  F,  O,  P;  4,  4  (v.  668),  C,  O,  P;  4,  7  (v.  771),  C, 
F,  O,  P;  5,  9  (v.  1049),  C;  Phorm.  2,  i  (v.  231),  C;  2,  3  (v.  348),  C,  F,  O;  2, 
4  (v.  441),  C;  4.  5  (v.  713).  C;  5,  8  (v.  894),  C;  Hec.  3,  4  (v.  415),  C,  O,  P; 
Ad.  2,  I  (v.  15s),  C;  3,  2  (v.  299),  C,  F,  O,  P;   5,  7  (v.  899),  F;   5,  9  (v.  958),  F. 


1 64 


John  Calvin  Watson 


which  later  hands  have  added  the  names,  or  have  changed  the  order,  in 
either  case  with  a  wrong  assignment.*  This  does  not  include  three 
scenes  in  P  where  apparently  no  attempt  was  made  to  adapt  the 
names  to  the  order  of  figures.*  Where  the  collocation  of  figures  is 
normal,  errors  in  the  assignment  of  names  are  rare,  there  being  but  one 
instance  each  in  C,  F.*  This  striking  contrast  suggests  that  the  disa- 
greement between  the  names  and  the  figures  is  due  to  the  normal  order 
of  names.  This  is  true  of  four  scenes  in  P,  of  five  each  in  F,  O,  and 
was  originally  true  of  sixteen  scenes  in  C.  With  these  should  be 
included  Eun.  3,  5  (v.  549),  O,  and  Phorm,  4,  3  (v.  606),  F,  where 
names  have  been  added  by  later  hands.  Moreover,  in  Eun,  4,  3 
(v.  643),  F,  O,  P,  and  4,  7  (v.  771),  C,  the  incorrect  assignment  of 
port  of  the  names  is  explained  in  the  same  way.  This  is  true  also  of 
Haut.  4,  4  (v.  723),  Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643),  and  Ad,  2,  i  (v.  155),  where 
the  names,  written  in  the  normal  order  by  the  copyist  of  C,  have  been 
subjected  to  changes  by  later  hands.  In  the  rest  of  the  instances,  the 
error  is  usually  due  to  the  figures  of  mute  characters  in  the  mmiatures. 
Rarely  can  more  than  a  single  scene  be  found  in  any  manuscript  in 
which  the  error  in  the  assignment  is  not  clearly  due  to  the  arrangement 
of  the  names  in  the  usual  order. 

From  the  evidence  presented  above,  it  is  a  necessary  conclusion  that 
the  miniatures  and  the  headings  in  illustrated  mss.  have  come  from 
different  sources.  If  this  is  true,  it  is  important  to  determine  the  family 
to  which  the  headings  belong.  Schlee  seems  to  hold  that  they  came 
from  8  codices,  and  in  support  of  this  view  he  cites  certain  scenes  in 
which  the  headings  in  the  two  families  are  very  similar.  In  reply  it 
may  be  said  that  the  resemblance  is  accounted  for  by  the  close  relation- 
ship existing  between  the  headings  in  all  classes  of  codices.  The 
headings  in  F  may  have  come  from  8  codices,  but  this  cannot  be  true 
of  those  in  the  rest  of  the  illustrated  mss.     Against  such  a  view,  nega- 


»  And,  3,  I  (v.  459),  C;  5,  4  (v.  904),  C;  Haui,  4,  4  (v.  723),  C;  Eun.  3,  2 
(▼.  454),  P;  3,  3  (v.  507),  C;  3,  5  (v.  549),  O;  4»  3  (v-  643),  C;  Phorm.  4,  3 
(v.  606),  F;  Ad.  2,  I  (v.  155),  C. 

*  And.  3,  1  (v.  459);  3,  4  (v.  580);  Haut.  4,  7  (v.  829).  Cf.  also  one  heading 
at  And.  5,  4  (v.  904). 

»  Phorm.  5,  6  (v.  841),  C;  Ad.  i,  2  (v.  81),  F. 


( 

n 


r 


" 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  165 

tive,  but  apparently  decisive  evidence  is  found  in  certain  differences  in 
the  headings.* 

In  members  of  the  8  family  the  roles,  either  in  the  same  line,  or  in 
different  lines,  sometimes  precede  the  names.  This  inversion  of  the 
usual  order  occurs  in  part  of  one  heading  in  V,  in  six  headings  in  G,  in 
eight  in  D,  in  fourteen  in  M,  and  in  fifty- three  in  Paris.  10304.  Disre- 
garding the  heading  in  V,  a  total  of  56  scenes  are  found  in  which  at 
least  one  manuscript  of  the  8  family  gives  the  roles  before  the  names. 
Though  Paris.  10304  includes  most  of  the  instances  in  the  rest  of  the 
codices,  the  members  of  the  family  never  agree  in  even  a  single  scene. 
These  facts  make  it  certain  that  changes  have  been  from  the  peculiar 
order,  not  towards  it.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  in  some  places 
such  changes  have  taken  place  in  all  the  mss.,  for  in  three  scenes  where 
the  names  are  written  in  the  first  line,  the  roles  in  the  second,  the 
Greek  letters  —  notae  personarum  —  are  not  given  with  the  names,  but 
with  the  roles.'^  It  is  a  probable  conjecture,  therefore,  that  the  earliest 
8  codices  had  the  roles  before  the  names  in  every  scene.  Of  this 
peculiar  order  there  is  not  a  trace  in  the  illustrated  mss.'* 

Another  mark  of  distinction  is  the  form  of  the  numeral  in  scenes 
which  have  characters  of  the  same  role.  The  form  written  by  the 
copyists  of  the  Bembinus  and  the  y  manuscripts  is  invariably  11  and  iii, 
never  the  words  dvo  and  tres.  In  8,  F,  both  are  used,  the  words 
instead  of  the  arithmetical  symbols  appearing  in  one  out  of  eight  in- 
stances in  G,  in  one  out  of  three  in  V,  in  three  out  of  nine  in  M,  in 
three  out  of  five  in  F,  in  fourteen  out  of  thirty-five  in  D,  and  in  twenty- 
eight  out  of  thirty-six  in  Paris.  10304.  The  8  headings  are  frequently 
at  variance  in  this  respect,  a  result  that  is  obviously  due  to  changes. 

*  Since  this  test  depends  entirely  on  the  roles,  which  are  seldom  preserved  m  L,  it  is 
obvious  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  this  manuscript. 

*  And.  2,  2  (v.  338),  Paris.  10304;  3,  2  (v.  481),  Paris.  10304;  Ad.  3,  4 
(v.  447),  D. 

3  In  a  number  of  5  headings  written  in  one  line,  the  roles  do  not  alternate  with  the 
names,  but  either  precede  or  follow  the  names  in  a  body.  This  is  true  of  1 1  headings 
in  D,  of  23  in  G,  of  24  in  Paris.  10304,  and  of  28  in  M.  In  a  few  scenes,  characters  of 
the  same  role  are  named  together,  followed  by  the  role  and  numeral,  after  which  the 
rest  of  the  names  appear.  Of  these  peailiar  methods  of  arranging  the  names  and  roles, 
the  first  is  never  found  in  7  codices,  the  second,  only  at  And.  3,  4  (v.  580),  and  5,  4 
(v.  904) ,  where  headings  have  been  supplied  in  P  by  later  hands. 


1 66 


John  Calvin  Watson 


There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  the  form  of  the  numeral,  as  well  as  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  names  and  r61es,  Paris.  10304  best  represents 
the  archetype  of  its  family.  It  is  very  probable,  therefore,  that  the 
words  Dvo  and  tres  alone  were  employed  in  the  earliest  representatives 
of  this  family.  The  variation  in  F,  which  may  indicate  the  source  of 
the  headings  in  this  manuscript,  is  natural  in  a  codex  which  has  been 
under  the  influence  of  S  codices. 

A  third  distinguishing  mark  of  the  S  headings  is  the  use  of  the 
abbreviation  idem.  In  the  illustrated  manuscripts  the  form  is  seven 
times  EiDEM,  and  only  once  idem.^  In  three  instances  it  is  used  with 
characters  of  the  same  role,  while  in  all  of  the  eight  scenes  it  appears 
with  the  first  of  two  or  more  names  of  characters  who  remain  on  the  stage 
from  the  preceding  scene.  In  the  illustrated  codices,  therefore,  these 
forms  are  invariably  plural,  and  denote  an  identity  of  two  or  more 
characters  in  successive  scenes.  In  the  S  family,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
form  is  idem  in  all  of  the  eight  scenes  where  the  word  is  found.'^  In  all 
of  these,  except  Ad,  2,  4  (v.  265),  it  is  not  used  with  the  first,  but  with 
the  second  of  two  names.  In  six  scenes  the  characters  referred  to  have 
the  same  role,  while  in  two  they  have  different  roles.  In  three  scenes 
neither  of  the  characters  remains  on  the  stage,  in  one  scene  one  of  them 
remains,  and  in  four  scenes  both  of  them  remain.  In  the  8  codices, 
therefore,  the  word  idem  has  two  distinct  uses.  In  four  scenes  it  is 
singular  in  number,  and  denotes  an  identity  of  roles  of  characters  in  the 
heading  where  it  is  used.  In  two  other  scenes  it  may  have  this 
meaning,  or  it  may  be  plural  and  refer  to  two  characters  in  the  pre- 
ceding scene.'  If  the  latter  alternative  is  correct,  the  names,  with  the 
accompanying  roles,  have  been  changed  from  the  order  of  figures  to 


*  ElDBM  is  used  in  And.  3,  4  (v.  580),  C,  Paris.  7903;  Phorm,  I,  4  (v.  179),  C, 
P;  5»  9  (v.  990) »  C,  P;  Ad,  2,  4  (v.  265),  P,  Paris.  7900;  3,  2  (v.  299),  C,  P, 
Paris.  7900;  5,  8  (v.  924),  C,  P,  Paris.  79CX);  5,  9  (v.  958),  C,  P.  Idem  is  used 
in  Ad.  5,  2  (v.  776),  O,  P,  Paris.  7900. 

*  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242),  D;  Phorm.  4,  3  (v.  606),  Paris.  IO304;  4,  5  (v.  713),  D; 
5,  3,  12  (v.  795),  D;  5,  6  (v.  841),  D;  Hec.  2,  2  (v.  243),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304; 
3,  4  (v.  415),  D,  M,  Paris.  10304;  Ad.  2,  4  (v.  265),  D,  G,  M,  Paris.  10304.  In 
the  place  last  named,  the  orthographical  variant  item  is  found  in  G,  M.  In  Phorm, 
S»  8,  93  (v.  986),  IDEM  is  given  in  a  heading  in  D,  but  the  heading  probably  has  no 
manuscript  authority.     Cf.  p.  153,  n.  i. 

^  Haut.  2,  3  (v.  242);  Phorm.  4,  3  (v.  606). 


K 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  167 

the  normal  order.  Before  Phorm,  5,  6  (v.  841)  and  Ad,  2,  4  (v.  265), 
IDEM  can  only  be  plural,  and  refer  to  an  identity  of  characters  in  suc- 
cessive scenes.  In  the  first  of  these  two  places  the  position  of  the 
word  must  be  due  to  a  change  in  the  order  of  the  last  two  names.  The 
second  place  is  noteworthy  as  the  only  one  where  both  eidem  and  idem 
are  found.  Both  are  plural,  and  afford  positive  evidence  that,  as  in  the 
Bembinus,  all  headings  at  v.  254  formerly  contained  the  name  of  Sannio. 

Since  the  headings  transmitted  in  y  codices  have  no  traces  whatever 
of  the  three  characteristic  marks  of  the  8  headings,  the  theory  proposed 
by  Schlee  must  be  rejected.  The  source  of  the  y  headings  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  family  of  which  the  Bembinus  is  the  only  survivor.  Except 
in  the  order  of  names,  which  has  been  adapted  in  part  to  the  collocation 
of  figures,  the  headings  in  C,  P  differ  from  those  in  A  only  in  the  use 
of  EIDEM  (once  idem)  among  the  roles.  All  other  differences  are  trivial, 
and  are  easily  explained.  Whether  eidem  was  employed  in  the  original 
headings  is  a  question  to  which  I  see  no  answer. 

The  history  of  the  headings  in  illustrated  mss.,  and  through  them  the 
relationship  existing  between  the  codices,  can  be  determined  with  reason- 
able certainty.  The  latest  common  ancestor  of  our  illustrated  codices 
had  no  scene-headings.  From  it  two  copies  were  made,  through  one  of 
which  F  is  descended,  through  the  other,  the  rest  of  the  members  of 
the  family.  At  some  point  in  the  transmission,  headings  were  inserted 
in  each  of  these  subdivisions.  Those  preserved  in  F,  and  drawn  prob- 
ably from  S  codices,  may  have  been  inserted  in  the  first  four  plays  only, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  in  the  Phormio,  These  headings  can  have 
no  connection  with  those  found  in  C,  O,  P,  and  the  two  Paris,  mss., 
Nos.  7900  and  7903.  The  archetype  of  the  latter  subdivision  was  sup- 
plied with  headings  from  a  codex  resembling  the  Bembinus.  Though 
some  attempt  at  a  correct  assignment  may  have  been  made,  the  order  of 
names,  with  few  exceptions,  was  normal.  In  scenes  where  this  order 
was  not  appropriate  to  the  collocation  of  figures,  various  hands 
attempted  to  correct  the  assignment.  The  fewest  changes  were  made 
in  the  codices  from  which  C  is  descended,  the  most  in  those  of  which 
P  is  a  representative.^     Though  these  two  manuscripts  were  written  at 

*  Both  in  the  miniatures,  therefore,  and  in  the  scene-headings,  the  Vaticanus  best 
represents  the  archetype  of  the  family.  Except  in  the  distinctio  versuum,  it  may  well 
be  doubted  whether  the  Parisinus  deserves  the  prominence  usually  accorded  it. 


1 68 


John  Calvin  Watson 


about  the  same  time,  the  headings  disprove  the  common  assumption 
that  they  are  copies  of  the  same  original.  The  two  Paris  codices, 
Nos.  7900  and  7903,  with  rare  exceptions,  agree  with  C  not  only  in  the 
omission  of  the  headings  in  certain  scenes,  but  also  in  the  order  of 
names.  Where  the  names  written  by  the  copyist  of  C  have  been  erased 
or  changed,  the  original  order  can  be  recovered  from  these  two  manu- 
scripts.* It  is  possible  that  Paris.  7903  is  a  copy  of  C,  but  this  cannot 
be  true  of  Paris.  7900.  The  latter,  and  probably  both,  are  copies  either 
of  the  same  original  as  C,  or  of  a  very  closely  related  manuscript.  The 
Dunelmensis,  on  the  other  hand,  must  be  classed  with  P,  with  which  it 
almost  invariably  agrees  in  the  order  of  names.  That  it  is  not  a  copy 
of  P,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  has  readings  not  found  in  the  Parisi- 
nus,  but  given  by  other  members  of  the  family.*  It  must  be  regarded, 
therefore,  as  a  descendant,  and  probably  a  copy,  of  the  same  manu- 
script as  P.  Any  other  conclusion  is  precluded  by  the  close  agreement 
of  the  two  codices  in  the  assignment  of  names.*  If  this  is  true,  there 
are  strong  grounds  for  suspecting  the  genuineness  of  the  miniatures 
transmitted  in  O  alone  before  And.  5,  i  (v.  820),  and  5,  2  (v.  842). 
These  were  accepted  by  Hoeing  without  question,  and  influenced  him 
greatly  in  his  attempt  to  define  the  position  of  O  among  the  illustrated 
codices.*  In  the  two  scenes  referred  to,  it  is  surely  possible  that,  like 
Cocquelines,  the  copyist  of  O,  or  of  some  earlier  manuscript,  invented 
pictures  of  his  own.  If  the  headings  in  8  codices  came  from  miniatures, 
these  offer  an  easy  means  of  testing  the  two  pictures.  It  is  significant 
that  in  neither  scene  is  the  order  of  names  consistent  with  the  order  of 
figures.'^     Before  v.  820  this  fact  might  be  due  to  the  confusing  of  the 


*  The  only  exceptions  are  Morm.  2,  I  (v.  231)  and  Ad.  2,  i  (v.  155),  where 
ris.  7903  gives  the  names  in  the  corrected  order. 

*  Cf.  Hoeing,  Am,  your.  AreheoL,  Second  Series,  Vol.  IV,  p.  321  f. 

*  The  most  notable  example  is  at  Eun.  4,  7  (v.  771).  This  place  alone  is  sufficient 
to  establish  the  dose  relationship  of  O  to  P. 

*  Op.  cii.,  pp.  321  and  328. 

*  The  only  manuscript  giving  the  normal  order  of  names  at  v.  820  is  Paris.  10304. 
In  this  respect  it  is  opposed  to  D,  E,  G,  L,  M,  and  to  Paris.  A  of  Donatus.  At  v.  842 
the  normal  order  depends  upon  the  r61e  of  Dromo,  which  in  D,  Paris.  10304,  is  lorariusj 
in  G,  servus.  The  former  two  codices  give  the  normal  order  with  the  name  of  Dromo 
last  of  all.  With  them  agree  L  and  Paris.  A  of  Donatus.  But  G  also,  with  which  E, 
M  agree,  gives  the  normal  order,  naming  Dromo  second. 


Scene-Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence 


169 


two  figures  of  senes,  but  no  such  objection  can  be  made  to  the  com- 
parison in  the  second  scene.  The  repetition  of  the  role  servus  in  G, 
and  the  use  of  a  Latin  letter  in  D,  Paris.  10304,  instead  of  the  usual 
Greek  nota  personae,  are  surely  traces  of  some  change  in  the  name  of 
Dromo.  In  all  probability  this  name  formerly  stood  first  on  the  left, 
with  that  of  Davus  second.  In  some  codices,  like  E,  G,  M,  the  two 
names  were  interchanged  in  order  to  give  the  first  speaker  his  usual 
position.  In  others,  like  D,  L,  Paris.  10304,  the  same  result  was  pro- 
duced by  transferring  the  name  of  Dromo  to  the  end  of  the  heading. 
According  to  the  evidence  of  the  headings,  the  miniatures  represented 
Dromo  and  Davus  in  contiguous  positions,  not,  as  in  O,  as  far  apart  as 
possible.  It  is  obvious  that  they  should  have  been  represented  together, 
for  Dromo  is  on  the  stage  little  longer  than  suffices  to  speak  five  verses. 
Moreover,  the  artist,  in  harmony  with  his  usual  practice,  would  scarcely 
have  failed  to  show  Dromo  engaged  in  binding  Davus,  or  carrying  him 
away.  For  these  reasons,  it  is  probable  that  the  two  pictures  under 
discussion  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  copyist  of  O.  In  seeking  for  the 
latest  common  ancestor  of  O  and  P,  therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
look  farther  back  than  the  original  of  the  Parisinus. 


1 

) 


Conclusion 

It  has  been  shown  in  this  paper  that  the  scene-headings  and  the 
miniatures  usually  have  the  same  normal  order  of  characters,  and  that, 
with  rare  exceptions,  an  unusual  order  of  names  coincides  with  an 
unusual  order  of  figures,  or  preserves  evidence  that  it  formerly  did  so, 
or  was  intended  to  do  so.  Moreover,  in  scenes  where  the  order  of 
names  is  normal,  and  the  collocation  of  figures  is  unusual,  the  headings 
in  8  codices  usually,  in  the  Bembinus  less  often,  preserve  traces  of 
changes  in  the  order  of  names.  In  a  large  number  of  places  in  this 
group  the  normal  order  of  names  could  easily  have  arisen  from  errors  in 
identifying  figures.  Lastly,  evidence  has  been  presented  to  show  that 
differences  in  scene-division  are  due  once  to  the  addition  of  a  picture 
by  a  copyist,  nine  times  to  the  omission  of  either  headings  or  miniatures. 
There  remain  but  one  heading  each  in  E,  G,  L,  and  the  later  portions 
of  D,  and  two  each  in  D,  Paris.  10304,^  in  which  an  unusual  order  of 


*  See  p.  115,  nn.  i  and  2. 


I  JO 


John  Calvin  Watson 


H 


names  cannot  be  explained  either  by  the  collocation  of  figures,  or  by 
changes  in  scene-division.  There  are  no  exceptions  whatever  in  A,  M. 
The  impossibility  of  explaining  the  eight  headings  referred  to  in  the  rest 
of  the  codices,  or  of  finding  direct  evidence  of  the  omission  of  headings 
or  miniatures  in  sixteen  places,  affords  no  adequate  ground  for  rejecting 
the  theor>^  here  presented.  I  hold,  therefore,  that  the  scene-headings 
originated  from  miniatures,  and  that  their  distribution  was  originally 
identical.  Errors  in  identifying  figures  show  that  the  artist  was  not  also 
the  author  of  the  headings.  These  were  later  made  up  by  some  one 
who  sought  out  the  names  in  the  text  and  assigned  them,  with  the  roles, 
to  the  figures  in  the  miniatures.  Wherever  characters  not  named  in  the 
text  appear  in  the  pictures,  the  roles  alone  were  assigned.^  To  some 
of  these,  later  hands  have  prefixed  arbitrary  names.  For  Terence,  at 
least,  this  explanation  removes  the  chief  ground  upon  which  Spengel  and 
Seyffert  denied  the  •imultaneous  origin  of  the  names  and  roles.  There 
is  no  force  in  their  further  argument  that  in  a  heading  like  Apoecides, 
Feriphanes,  senes  duo,  the  roles  could  not,  according  to  classical  usage, 
have  been  in  apposition  to  the  names,  and  hence  that  the  roles  were 
prior  to  the  names.  In  headings  containing  characters  of  different 
roles,  each  name  originally  was  read  with  the  appropriate  role  below 
it  and  in  apposition  to  it.  Wherever  several  names  are  found,  any 
other  explanation  is  impossible.  In  the  heading  given  above,  which 
is  an  example  of  one  in  which  characters  have  the  same  role,  the 
words  senes  duo  are  only  a  briefer  form  of  senex,  senex.  That  the 
latter  form  was  the  original  one  in  some  cases  can  scarcely  be 
doubted.*  There  is  no  evidence,  therefore,  that  the  names  and  the 
roles  originated  at  different  times.  Since  both  clearly  betray  the 
influence  of  the  miniatures,  they  must  be  ascribed  to  a  single  hand. 
In  the  scene-headings  we  find  the  most  important,  though  hitherto 
unrecognized  evidence  about  the  date  at  which  the  miniatures  originated. 
Since  the  headings  in  manuscripts  of  Plautus  must  be  included  in  any 


*  The  word  prologus,  found  in  illustrated  and  non-illustrated  codices  alike,  is  prob- 
ably only  a  role  originally  assigned  to  the  figure  of  the  character  who  speaks  the  pro- 
logue.    Cf.  Havet,  \i'6\^\xi'%  Archiv,  II,  p.  613. 

«  Cf.  And.  2,  I  (v.  301),  D;  Ad.  3,  4  (v.  447),  A.  On  the  last  named  passage, 
see  p.  125  f.  It  is  very  probable  that  this  was  the  original  form  also  in  And.  2,  5 
(v.  412),  Eun.  4,  3  (v.  643),  and  Phorm,  5,  8  (v.  894). 


Scene- Headings  and  Miniatures  in  Terence  171 

discussion  of  this  subject,  a  more  thorough  analysis  of  the  evidence  is 
postponed  to  a  later  paper.  It  may  briefly  be  pointed  out,  however, 
that  the  presence  of  headings  in  the  Bembinus,  and  the  fact  that  they 
were  used  in  Donatus'  time,^  fixes  the  origin  of  the  headings  as  not 
later  than  the  fourth  century.  In  all  probability  they  are  older  than 
the  8  family  of  codices,  which  at  the  time  of  its  origin,  not  later  than 
the  third  century,  must  have  been  supplied  with  headings.  A  reason- 
able allowance  of  time  will  assign  the  approximate  date  of  the  headings 
to  the  second  century,  and  of  the  miniatures  to  the  first  century,  or 
even  to  the  second  half  of  the  first  century  b.c,  the  earliest  date 
suggested  by  Leo. 

In  the  total  absence  of  any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  the  y  codices  are  the  best  representatives  of  the  manuscript 
used  by  the  artist.  But  if  Leo  and  Schlee  are  to  be  believed,  the  text 
of  the  earliest  illustrated  editions  of  Terence  has  utterly  perished.  The 
belief  of  these  scholars  that  the  y  family  is  only  a  later  recension  based 
upon  a  8  codex,  constrained  them  to  invent  a  codex  of  unknown  family, 
and  of  the  best  period,  which  gave  to  the  new  recension  only  the  minia- 
tures and  the  order  of  plays.^  This  unwarranted  assumption  illustrates 
the  weakness  of  their  widely  accepted  views  about  the  relationship 
existing  between  the  several  classes  of  manuscripts.  It  seems  not  too 
much  to  say  that  this  old  manuscript  is  wholly  mythical  and  imaginary, 
for  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  its  existence.  The  certainty  of 
the  origin  of  the  headings  in  illustrated  mss.  removes  even  the  slight 
grounds  upon  which  Leo  and  Schlee  relied.  Moreover,  any  suggestion 
that  the  earliest  8  codices  were  illustrated,  would  be  open  to  serious 
objection,  for  the  archetype  of  the  family  clearly  did  not  have  new  scenes 
in  a  number  of  places  where  the  illustrated  manuscripts  have  miniatures. 
Lastly,  there  is  some  evidence  that  the  y  family  does  represent  the  text 
followed  by  the  artist,  for  at  Eun,  5,  8  (v.  1031),  the  order  of  figures 
is  almost  certainly  due  to  a  distribution  of  the  dialogue  found  only  in  y 
codices. 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  whatever  changes  may  have  been  made 


*  Cf .  Praef.  to  the  Adelphoe. 

»  A  protest  against  this  theory  is  made  by  Pease  in  the  Transact,  of  the  Am,  Phil, 
AssoCi  1887,  p.  40. 


u'r  -n" 


'TJ^?'* 


172 


John  Calvin  Watson 


n    y   cod.ces,   the   text  and    the   miniatures   have   been   transmitted 
together.     For  some  time  after  the  origin  of  the  headings,  they  must 
have  existed  m  illustrated  codices  alone.     Afterwards,  either  by  recen- 
s.ons  based  upon  a  member  of  the  y  family,  or  less  probably,  by  a  trans- 
fer from  one  family  to  another,  the  headings  came  to  be  used  alone. 
Smce  m  copymg  an  illustrated  manuscript,  the  headings  were  inserted 
ast  of  all,  .t  IS  not  surprising  that  they  were  omitted  at  some  point  in 
«ie  transm.ss.on,  only  to  be  restored  later  from  a  codex  closely  resem- 
bhng  the  Bembinus.     Beginning  probably  even  before  their  separation, 
the  m,n,atures  and  the  scene-headings,  both  in  themselves  and  in  thei^ 
distribution,  suffered  changes,  either  designed  or  accidental,  until  the 
relattonship  existing  between  them  was  obscured. 


I 


t\ 


W\ 


>fl 

■  ,:V 

<JI1 

H  ^ 

rffl 

H  ^i> 

'i 

V 

1 

^vik  f 

^Hi. ''  ^ 

m 

■  • 

n 


*;^- 


■••v£  * 


>' 


Mil; 


i-v%;*-;'v3f' 


3' 


■*>r-  •  i^:-*< 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


m 


S 


MT\ll 


L 


F 


f  «4 


i4-r    vZu 


'Ml 


•ai 


.A 


i!«l 


■.■'  1.1 


i.l*  *?'<-;. 


>^''%lfj 


»    C 


;i,.ii 


!*«§«*« 


^ 


JM.. 


